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.

Javier Milei

There is currently an NPOV discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard.

Geoff Metcalf

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.

---

• Geoff Metcalf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

The entire article is practically unsourced, as it has only 3 sources, only one being related to the article remotely. This means the article is held together by no real evidence. Unfortunately, the article has had these issues cited since May 2008 and appears to have lost traction. Asking here to see if anyone is able to find valid sources before I possibly tag for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk • contribs) 14:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I say go for it. I looked but nothing jumped out at me as far as sourcing an encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 21:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the 3 "sources" after looking into each one and determining each one was bullshit. My edit summaries in removing each contain finer language and detail. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Glad we came to the same conclusion. Unfortunate to see an article with such extensive detail be entirely without a valid source. Don't feel that bad about deletion now, though. I'm guessing that back in 2008, it was more of a wild west for articles, because I think a modern editor would have a conniption if they saw the sources. UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk) 11:13, 13 September 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.

Dominic Ng

• Dominic Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has been mentioned before but I'm hoping some more BLP experienced eyes for one particular issue at Talk:Dominic Ng#Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference on whether the subject's participating in the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference is WP:DUE for the lead. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

By way of further explanation, at the moment we have a bunch of editors who may have a CoI or otherwise seem to be new who are opposed, one experienced editor who keeps adding it back unfortunately without explaining why they feel it is DUE (I'm dealing with that elsewhere), and basically me as the only experienced editor engaged in the talk page and I don't really know (which means I'm leaning towards exclude). The article is in a bit of a mess and also very short, making it fairly unclear what is and isn't due beyond their main job. I will also try to seek help from Wikiproject China although that seems fairly inactive. Nil Einne (talk) 02:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, @Nil Einne. I've suggested a rewrite on the talk page. INFjorder (talk) 06:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Unsure if it matters, but do note that this article was raised here 20 days ago: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive352#Dominic_Ng. – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I think participation in the conference is probably noteworthy enough for a lede mention (one line), with slightly more below, but not much more. That's because of the nature of membership in the consultative body and the nature of the body as an institution. It's not representative, it has no power (advisory only), but it does reflect national, regional, and local policy. It's just sort of important, nothing to indicate notability, but probably noteworthy enough for a mention or two. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• After giving the TLDR talk page a solid once through, I found the discussion around the COI proffer so scintillating that I thought the next best forum might be WP:SPI. So here it is. It looks like WP:MEAT at a minimum. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

  Turns out the subject's paid promoter User:East West AOT was socking (5 accounts). This does not bode well for this article's BLP issues in the future. Depending on page activity and WP:SPI admin action, this might need to go to WP:RPP to require reviewer levels, because paid editors will eagerly while away time to gain autopatrol. JFHJr (㊟) 22:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Looks like admin already protected. Thanks User:Courcelles. JFHJr (㊟) 22:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Because talk page contents subject to BLP rules too, I've stricken several comments and reverted a whole section proposing a rewrite because the paid contributor/s were socking in order to fabricate a WP:CONSENSUS in violation of BLP (re: sourcing, weight, relevance, etc.). Although the article is protected, the talk page may have these BLP problems crop up again. I'll keep watching. Appreciate any additional eyes. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Priya Venkatesan

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.

---

Please delete this page since it contains inaccurate, misleading, defamatory and biased information on the person the subject of the biography. The following links accurately represent my public image, as a prominent stakeholders in the precision medicine and oncology community. I am an elected member of prestigious medical societies: the American Society for Clinical Oncology, the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics and the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer. Additionally, I have many publications that received notable recognition from the scientific and medical community.

http://www.haysdocumentationspecialists.com

LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/priya-hays-60866025/

Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine Second Edition: https://www.springer.com/us/book/9783030800994

Twitter post of ASCO Connection mention of Second Edition posted by Springer: https://twitter.com/SpringerClinMed/status/1486036036018917377

Book review of Second Edition by Doody’s Medical Books Reviewer: http://www.doody.com/dej/PublicTitle.asp?ISBN=9783030800994#Title

Research Features edition of Advancing Healthcare Through Personalized Medicine https://researchfeatures.com/documenting-dramatic-evolution-personalised-medicine/

ASCO Post Book Review of Second Edition: https://ascopost.com/issues/may-25-2022/a-second-edition-adds-new-value-to-personalized-medicine/

Cancer Immunotherapies: Solid Tumors and Hematologic Malignancies: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-96376-7

Precision Oncology article (on page 98) Open Access Government (pagesuite-professional.co.uk)

I am kindly requesting that you delete this biography page or delete the current content and replace with this accurate information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priya.hays (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated this article for deletion due to WP:BLP1E concerns (see WP:Articles for deletion/Priya Venkatesan). S0091 (talk) 22:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@Priya.hays: Hello Priya, are you there? The deletion discussion (linked above) could use your input according to comments there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:47, 20 September 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.

Patrick Criado

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.

---

• 2603:7000:603a:2f9d:90a2:4fb8:ffd9:7e44 (contribs | filter log)
• 172.58.109.88 (contribs | filter log)
• 189.176.9.150 (contribs | filter log)
• 2603:7000:603a:2f9d:8f:be81:c863:9917 (contribs | filter log)

Content in Patrick Criado not supported by the sources used is repeatedly added in the article by several drive-by IPs [1] [2], [3], [4], [5]. Content is presumably a WP:BLP violation. On the internet I've only found hits linking both names (the article's subject and his purported couple) in es:wikipedia and a wikipedia mirror, let alone in an actual reliable source.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest requesting for page protection since the issue is vandalism. FossilWave (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and requested protection. FossilWave (talk) 13:56, 16 September 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.

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

There is a proposal on the article Talk page to add content to the lead of this article based on a tweet by Keen-Minshull that states:

I’m not a feminist. I am grateful to feminists of the past for the many freedoms I enjoy. But feminism has been taken over by pimps, punters, pro men pretending to be women, pro womb rental, anti child morons. Stop trying to tell me that I should be a feminist….

Additional participation in this discussion is welcome. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, it is not a single tweet; KJKM has said many times, including on video, that she is "not a feminist". [6][7][8][9][10] The current debate is (if I understand correctly) whether these statements are WP:V and WP:RELY per WP:BLPSELF, and whether the "not a feminist" identification should or should not be added to the article, which currently calls her a "women's rights activist". 74.76.229.168 (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, WP:BLPSPS clearly says we can source this information to Keen-Minshull herself. It's not (despite Beccaynr's claims) "unduly self-serving", and obviously so because it's a simple self-description that is if anything slightly against her best PR interests. Nor is it (again despite Beccaynr's claims) involving third parties: there are claims about third parties in some of the original sources but we don't repeat those claims nor do we use it to source any such claims. Loki (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

You're mistaken, any self description is inherently self-serving. In fact it's a key example of the sort of thing we're supposed to avoid. Otherwise we'd be adding crap like people calling themselves climate change scientist or vaccinologist when no one familiar with that these terms mean would remotely agree with that self description. Nil Einne (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I would note that having looked into this further, I've found a bunch of sources that do briefly touch on the "not a feminist" thing but only in a very limited way and often without even clarifying whether she's said it or in what contexts. So it seems there is even more reason to exclude as reliable secondary sources despite being aware there is some dispute on the issue, have by and large felt it not worth clarifying further. E.g. [11] [12] [13] [14]. The only source I found which did is [15] but unfortunately it's a discussion programme so not really a source suitable for a BLP. (I'm ignoring crap like Daily Mail obviously.) As I said on the talk page, why this is, isn't really my, or our business, we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Nil Einne (talk) 10:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

The talk page has soundly rejected this interpretation but also let me explain my personal issue with this claim:

Self-descriptions are indeed sometimes self-serving. In fact, on the very page in question we have a talk page note saying that we call her an anti-trans activist instead of her self-description as a women's rights activist because that's what the sources say. But just because some self-descriptions are self-serving, that doesn't mean that every self-description is self-serving. That's like saying that because some food is tasty all food is tasty. It's just a very basic fallacy. We need to actually use our judgement as to whether something is "unduly self-serving", there's no hard-and-fast rule.

In this particular case, "not a feminist" is slightly self-defeating, measured by the fact that supporters of Keen-Minshull often assume she's a feminist while opponents often loudly deny that she's a feminist.

The sourcing issues I think are fairer, but we do have at least one reliable source for this. Although it's audio-only, it clearly has both the interviewer and the expert (and a recording of Keen-Minshull herself) all agree that she's not a feminist. And besides the reliable source, we have Keen-Minshull saying over and over and over that she's not a feminist, which is important to clarify because other sources get this wrong all the time, and assume because she identifies as a women's rights activist, she therefore identifies as a feminist. Loki (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a note that I stick by my earlier view on using Keen-Minshull tweets as the sole source for the claim, as a violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB first criterion. But I'm lazy to debate it further. And for the article, I now consider it a moot point. I've found a source which I consider sufficient to add the claim in the article if editors feel it's important. (I'm still surprised at how hard it has been to find this given that Keen-Minshull isn't someone who has avoided the interest of RS, but whatever I don't care enough to argue it's WP:UNDUE.) For more details, check out the talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Emily Austin and Emily Austin Perry

Last time I brought up Emily Austin redirecting to Emily Austin instead of Emily Austin Perry it went down like a lead balloon. I fought the good fight and when the motion got resoundingly beaten, I accepted that decision. No problem. I'm only writing now because twice in the last couple of weeks, there were considerable spikes in page views to Emily Austin. 9,738 on September 2 and 12,065 on September 16. Does this in any way change things vis a vis who Emily Austin should redirect to? MaskedSinger (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

IMO this is one of the consistent errors of RM -- titles are navigational aids, not statements of something's value, and because Wikipedia is a living document it is a feature rather than a bug if navigation methods change routinely as their targets ebb and flow. Having said that, 1. by prior experience with RM this is still extremely unlikely to get through, 2. this is technically the wrong forum, and 3. in practice the least bad solution for a lot of these is to propose a disambiguation page rather than a primary topic. Vaticidalprophet 19:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I looked at the noticeboard for page moves and its only for requested moves. I wasn't going to go through process again unless people thought there was merit in doing so. Where is the correct forum to write post this?

My point then and now is that you have someone who is known as Emily Austin vs someone who sometimes is referred to as as such. For 100+ years, Emily Austin Perry was the most notable Emily Austin, but I would counter that in 2023, she isn't. If everyone else disagrees, fair play :)

All I'd like clarification on, is at what point, this could change? I won't bring this up again till that happens. MaskedSinger (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree Vaticidalprophet that there's a big difference between proposing a disambiguation page vs a redirect so when will depend on a lot on which one you're asking about. This case is somewhat complicated, Emily Austin Perry is clearly a way more significant figure in terms of long term significance frankly if you want to put it in numerical terms by at least one order of magnitude than Emily Austin the journalist is. This is tempered by the fact Emily Austin Perry has multiple names. But still this extreme difference in long term significance means that any proposal to make Emily Austin the primary topic is only likely to succeed if Emily Austin gains that long term significance which is likely to take many years at a minimum barring something extraordinary. You won't need something quite so extreme for a disambiguation page, but still some indication that this is is someone of wide interest e.g. coverage over a longer term and in sources which are more selective in what they cover would likely help. Nil Einne (talk) 09:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough answer. I really appreciate it. So the spike in views doesn't change a thing and thus there is nothing to do here now. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, while not relating to living persons, I've often considered Java a good example of the complexities of what is the primary topic for an article. I think for the entire life of the articles Java (programming language) has gotten more views than Java which is (and has generally been) our article on the island. Currently it's 143,468 vs 52,464 over 30 days and at least so of those 52k were likely people wanting to go to the programming language article or somewhere else (whereas probably very few people ending up on the programming language wanted to go elsewhere, except maybe a few for Java (software platform) or JavaScript). And I think the view counts have had a bigger differences in the past. I'd actually hardly be surprised if at least in the early days of our articles, more people also wanted to go to Coffee or something related to that rather than the article on the island. However whenever it's come up, the consensus has generally been strongly against the programming language being the primary topic, and fairly against even Java being a disambiguation page. (There have been some cases when the situation was changed but I think these were all fairly unilateral moves.) Editors just fundamentally disagree that an island of 152 million people, currently the world's most populous island, should be anything other than the primary topic. (Noting also the names of pretty much everything else came from the island one way or the other.) While the issues when you have two humans are obviously not going to be the same I think it does illustrate why for better or worse, editors may not just take view counts or what readers are looking for as the ultimate arbiter. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I get what you're saying and it makes sense. I'm not sure if you read it, but the point I was making in the original discussion was that I can't imagine anyone is searching for a minor personality from 150+ years ago.

On top of this is the fact that I don't understand the conflict - Emily Austin Perry is Emily Austin Perry. Emily Austin is Emily Austin. So if anyone is looking for Emily Austin Perry, this is what they'd search for. Surely a person who is current and relevent and who is called Emily Austin would trump one of the 30 names Emily Austin Perry is referred to.

Additionally, if you look at pageviews for Emily Austin Perry you will see 2 recent spikes and these are due to the times that people were looking for Emily Austin. So it's clear who people are looking for. If it was the case you brought up where you're talking about a country fine, but here we have 2 people. Hopefully common sense will prevail. MaskedSinger (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Subramaniam Ramadorai

The current information is extremely outdated.

Need help in updating the information. There are ample references to support the new information.

Will try to avoid external links if it violates the norms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DebaratiG (talk • contribs) 15:18, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

@DebaratiG, you should first discuss your reverted edits on Talk:Subramaniam Ramadorai. Don't remove existing refs. Don't insert external URLs in the body, except as sources between <ref> tags. Don't use promotional language (such as "Due to his keen passion"). Schazjmd (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure DebaratiG (talk) 05:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. (September 2023).

Please help me identify the sentences and paragraphs where the citations are needed for verification. DebaratiG (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Don Bingle

• Don Bingle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The wikipedia page for me has been wildly out-of-date and innaccurate for years. There is plenty of more recent and more accurate information about me online, including my complete writing resume, at my website at www.donaldjbingle.com. If anyone want to help out, please take a look there and please fix this. You can feel free to grab pics, book covers, details about my books, and more there. Also, information about my gaming history can be foound at www.orphyte.com/donaldjbingle/rpga.htm. Thanks for any help you are willing to give. Donald J. Bingle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:700:4A50:B5C8:FCD2:D64D:AAA5 (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Don. Unfortunately, personal websites and other self-published sources are not considered reliable sources (for most types of info) for Wikipedia's purposes. As an encyclopedia, we're a tertiary source, which means means we get most of our info from WP:Secondary sources, which are things like, books, magazines, newspaper articles, reliable websites, etc... Like most people, you may be thinking, what could be more reliable than getting it from the horse's mouth? The simple answer is that most people have a rather biased opinion of themselves and personal websites tend to be rather self-serving. Plus, secondary sources are how we determine the weight and balance of information. Unfortunately, this means we cannot always be up to date on our information, but then again we're not facebook. An encyclopedia should be written in a perfect or timeless perspective, just as we would if it was a paper encyclopedia which would never get updated. The best thing you could do to help update the article is to provide some reliable sources on the talk page, and request your changes there. Please review our WP:Conflict of interest policy, and try to avoid editing the article yourself. Thanks, and I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 17:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hi, Don. I'd like to reiterate that the article about you isn't supposed to be a WP:RESUME. But I'm willing to entertain your edit requests, to a point. My hope is that because you are an attorney, I might be able to provide feedback in terms that explain Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and the like. The forum to take me up on this offer is Talk:Don Bingle. Please initiate by going to "New topic" at the top. Your subject line should ALWAYS be "Edit request by [[WP:COI|the Subject]]" to let everyone know the request is coming from you even if you are logged out or on a different account. In the body, please propose your change. If it's a longer post than this one that I'm now leaving, please consider editing, refactoring, and reducing your request until it doesn't look like a wall of text (those are the hardest requests to handle). A plain statement and request work best. And sign the request with four tildes (~). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Lou Engle

I would like some help on the Lou Engle article. The "Controversies" section has, I think, spun out of control, but there is lots of sourced information there and I don't want to gut the whole thing. (I am involved but I don't really want to be.) StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh my God (no pun intended), that is awful. Not only do we have a controversy section, but it's broken into subsections of no more than a sentence or two each, with big, bold headlines above them. This is the perfect example of how not to write an article. I see a lot of unreliable sources there, such as Glaad and Rightwingwatch. There's no narrative to it whatsoever. It's literally just a list of allegedly negative things he's done, which makes it come off as a total smear job. That needs way more work than I have time for at the moment, but I fully agree, it needs work and is a serious BLP issue. Zaereth (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree regarding presentation (subheadings) and sourcing. I also think controversy is part of this subject's lasting biographical notability. That a dedicated half the article space and a third of references relate to the subject's notoriety is WP:UNDUE. What's reliably sourced should be streamed into the body in a timeline order. There should never be a judgment section. JFHJr (㊟) 05:31, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

A quick glance shows that there is little coverage of controversy in the "controversies" section. There are plenty of things he said that do not speak well to him, perhaps, but unless there is some kickback to them, they aren't controversies. A theoretical statement of "Gay people eat puppies" would only be a controversy once someone responded "no they don't!" (Just as a counterexample, Lou Engle#Anti-Muslim comments in Singapore does document a controversy, as it shows folks feeling the need to apologize for his speaking and saying he would not be welcome to do so again.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There also appears to be copyvio issues with the controceries section, note the very close phrase between it and the GLAAD article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:19, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree the way the controversy section was written invited people to pile on. Many of the controversies did not have strong sources. I have attempted to reorganise in a more neutral way.[16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:47, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That looks like a great improvement, a consensus oriented version. Coverage is more neutrally presented, even when it's adverse coverage that is biographically significant. Thanks, Morbidthoughts! JFHJr (㊟) 19:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Ghaffari surname

There is an issue of religion The edits we have made regarding Judaism and its relationship to this surname exists edits has constantly been removed we are trying to explain that the Ghaffari surname exists in the Jewish community in Iran there have never been any citations or sources because the Iranians have never recognized Jewish people please help in making this page more inclusive and including information about the “Jewish” Ghaffari’s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jewishsephardic (talk • contribs) 16:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be making changes based on you own personal knowledge. Wikipedia relies on secondary sources, you need to find a reliable source that has already published what you wish to add. If you continue making changes in the way you are, they will likely be reverted as well. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:21, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Aria Finger

Hello - So I wasnt to say upfront that I'm affiliated with Aria Finger. That said, I believe that the material about the walkout on her page violates Wikipedia standards. There was an independent investigation into the allegations and it found no racial bias or discriminatory intent and Finger was reinstated as CEO. Here is a statement from the Board about it (https://twitter.com/dosomething/status/1295461817708359680/photo/2). Given that and the fact that the walkout sentence cites sources of dubious quality and the articles contain no investigative journalism, the sentence includes essentially unsubstantiated allegations and I think it should be deleted. I'd also suggest that even if the fact that the walkout happened is appropriate content for a biography of a living person wikipedia page, saying it was "in protest of racial abuse" is inflammatory and should be deleted. Thank you for reviewing this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.47 (talk) 20:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

1) I've reverted the latest edit that replaced the content that was not supported by WP:RS, violated WP:BLP guidelines, and presented WP:UNDUE weight. I've also watched the page. 2) IP OP, please consider registering an account and making sure you're logged in before editing. 3) Please see WP:COI for good ways for you to participate in the consensus process – again, registering an account helps. But coming here is a good step when you have a conflict of interest. Kudos. 4) And to everyone else reading: the edit history looks like a sock drawer, doesn't it? JFHJr (㊟) 00:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

This subject's notability is hard to make out. This one could also use a sourcing check. JFHJr (㊟) 00:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Jonah Paffhausen

The Jonah Paffhausen page is having repeated problems with an anonymous editor pasting in contentious, poorly sourced accusations about Metropolitan Jonah's adherence to Orthodox teaching. The content is defamatory and libelous, and appears to be the product of someone with a personal grudge against Metropolitan Jonah. I ask for the page to receive immediate protection and moderation. --Nepsis2 (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a different forum for Requests for Page Protection. I'll be happy to watch the page though. JFHJr (㊟) 00:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP range from that page for a month for BLPvio and edit warring. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Rahul Easwar

The article should be deleted because of these reasons: Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth).Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Not adhering to Wikipedia guidelines and comment on talk section. [[17]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbcheku (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems you are looking foremost for WP:AFD. For any user behavior issues editing or on talk pages, there's WP:ANI, but if the article is deleted at WP:AFD, the editorial problems may become moot. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Gurpatwant Singh Pannun potentially libellous material / repeated edits using biased sources.

This page contains potentially libellous material regarding an accusation by biased sources that Mr. Pannun made threats against Hindi people.

@Suthasianhistorian8 is repeatedly editing the page to add these accusations, the sources they are using fail to mention any "threat" made by Mr. Pannun.

I am requesting Suthasianhistorian8 be blocked from editing the page.

Due to the recent assassination of Harjit singh nijjar, many other Pro-Khalistan leader's pages such as this one are being vandalized by users for emotional reasons. I've also requested this page be temporarily protected from any edits

Crude attempts by an editor with 7 edits to their name to whitewash a controverisal figure, who as the Canadian Press, a highly regarded news organization with extensive ties to the Associated Press, reported, "advised" a religious community to go back to their country of origin as soon as possible and accused them of being disloyal to their nation [18] [19]. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no issue if you would like to change "In September 2023, Pannun threatened Indo-Canadian Hindus and advised them to leave Canada"

to

"In September 2023, Pannun advised Indo-Canadian Hindus to leave Canada"

This is what I've been trying to correct it to, and it seems you're now in agreement Varials (talk) 09:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

No, the Hindustan Times, a source extensively used on Wikipedia, explicitly called it a threat - certainly a reasonable assumption. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

the Hindustan Times is objectively a biased source when it comes to Khalistani issues, considering Punjabs and Hindus are in direct opposition when it comes to the issue.

It would be like using "Russia Today" as an unbiased sources on issues related to Urkaine. Varials (talk) 09:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Funnily enough, the Hindustan Times was actually founded by a member of the Sikh centric political party Shiromani Akali Dal, which governed Punjab for decades. Hindustan Times is not biased, they called a spade a spade, telling people to go back to their country can 100% be construed as a racist threat. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The Hindustan times is Headquarted out of New Delhi, India.

India ranks 161 out of 180 on the world press freedom index

Any source coming out of India must be carefully reviewed as it is likely comes from a source in which the Government of India contains some editorial control.

Therefor, using sources from Indian media on a topic the Indian government is actively and aggressively attacking is ignorant if not malicious.

Anyone would agree that 3rd party, independent sources should be used. When you cited one, it contained no mention of a "threat" being made. Varials (talk) 09:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

We can't make sweeping generalizations that every single Indian news outlet is biased, those that are overtly so such as Swarajya or OpIndia have been deprecated by Wikipedia and can be removed on sight. But there are more neutral outlets, India Today, a prominent news organization, published numerous articles sympathetic to Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale for example. Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 09:42, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Even the official Public Safety Canada Twitter handle called the video hateful and offensive and suggested it was an act of aggression and intimidation- [20] Southasianhistorian8 (talk) 04:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Global University Systems

My name is Hanisha and I work for Aaron Etingen. The Global University Systems page was recently changed:

• From: "Russian-born British entrepreneur Aaron Etingen (also known as Arkady Etingen)"
• To: "Russian entrepreneur Arkady Etingen (sometimes known as Aaron Etingen)"

Mr. Etingen was born in Russia, but immigrated to Britain as a child and holds British citizenship. The change seems to be designed to emphasize a Russian connection by focusing on his Russian birth name and saying he is a Russian entrepreneur, rather than a British one. However:

• His British name has 5x the Google hits and is what is used by reliable sources.[21]
• Reliable sources support the original "Russian-born British entrepreneur" reference.[22]

The phrase "Russian entrepreneur" infers he is working out of Russia with Russian companies. This is harmful to Mr. Etingen's business because of the stigma around Russian affiliation, and is offensive on a personal level, since his wife's home country (Ukraine) was recently attacked by the country the page infers he is affiliated with.

Thank you in advance for looking into it. Best regards. Mstechvision (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

@Mstechvision, that change (Nov 22) was the only edit made by a new account, and was unexplained, so I restored the previous version. Schazjmd (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

And on closer look, I removed "Russian-born" because neither cited source mentions that. Schazjmd (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Halsey Beshears

Halsey Beshears (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The referenced article and information which I continue to remove is gossip, slander, victimizing and should not be sourced based on the Wiki guidelines: Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures.

Thank you for your assistance!— Preceding unsigned comment added by NursePractitioner101 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Greetings. I've performed a deep revert to the last WP:BLP compliant version. Your edits were also problematic. Please don't source WP:BLPSPS (people talking about each other) from interviews to author WP:UNDUE (extensive) and WP:SYNTH (synthesized and irreverent) prose regarding personal health. As to this being a non-public figure, thanks for the laugh. He's a politician even if he's retired or scandalized or what have you. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~). Lastly, you'll find your mileage will improve when you don't begin here, and leave edit summaries, winking at WP:LEGAL. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Craig Newmark

Craig Newmark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Folks, I was suggested by an editor to come here with an ongoing request I have on the Craig Newmark article.

It was suggested that the Philanthropy section could use some restructuring into subsections. Which I have been trying to do. I made a draft and tried the COI edit request queue and was told to establish consensus before making an edit request. Following that, I asked at Biographies of living persons and an editor said that wasn't the place to ask for help and suggested WP:BLPN. I did'nt think this would be the best place to post so before coming here, I also tried at WP:BIOG and the Teahouse without success. Since no one else has weighed in on my proposal, I am taking the previous editor's suggestion by coming here to see if anyone is interested. I am happy to take any questions on the Craig Newmark talk page Much thanks, Cnewmark (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It may be tedious, but focusing on one specific COI edit at a time is usually the best practice. Thriley (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Thriley here, Mr. Newmark. That's a long list of things to tackle all at once. It can be more than a bit overwhelming, to say the least. But let me ask you a serious question: is that actually how you want an article about you to read? No offense, and please take this as constructive, but it reads like an accounting record. A very long and tedious accounting record. It's long and boring and really glosses over what it should be telling us about, which is the subject --this person that the readers want to get to know better. There's an old saying in writing, which traces back to Browning I think: "Less is more". Seriously, if you want that section to look good, adding more is not the way to go. It needs to be a much shorter summary that still encompasses all those wonderful thing that you do. That will read better, be easier to comprehend, and will stick better in the reader's mind. That's what an encyclopedia is all about, cutting all the boring details and whittling it down to the nitty gritty. Less is more. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Whenever I hear that a businessman's article has a "philanthropy" section, I raise an eyebrow, because it seems like every businessman who ever lent his gramma five bucks wants to be labeled a philanthropist on Wikipedia for it. I was please to see that in this case it reflects a very legitimate and aggressive philanthropy. However, it's a slog to read, with a lot of "in this period, this cause got this chunk of money and this specific organization got that chunk", with overlapping periods and overlapping chunks. It seems to me that, even though the organization is so closely linked to the man, we have enough material that the organization might have its own web page (Craig Newmark Philanthropies is currently just a redirect to the man). That way, in the individual's article, we could have a good summary paragraph, covering in broad strokes the amounts given, targeted issues, and key recipients. Then the organizations article could have much more detail, with listings of the foundation's structure and the various causes addressed, with those including listings of recipients. Doing that in a separate article would not seem to overwhelm the article. But that's just my view, others may feel that the organization is too linked to the man to be a separate article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a very good idea to me, just to keep the section from getting so bloated. Still, what I would want to avoid is ending up with what is basically a list article, or what I like to call a simple timeline of events. It's important to look at it from the average reader's point of view. What's their attention span? What's easier for them to comprehend, follow, and retain, a history textbook full of dates and events or a simple, short narrative? The question I would ask myself is, how can I take all this information and condense it, squeeze it, and pack it down into a single paragraph? From there, then how can I expand it, elaborating on the first paragraph, to another two paragraphs --four at most-- but no more? Answer those questions and I find I'm on the way to a good looking section. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Henry Blodget

Requesting that this line be removed from the first sentence of the page on Henry Blodget: "considered 'one of the great scumbags of our generation'[1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr (talk • contribs) 19:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oliver Anthony

This article could used some help from experienced BLP editors. A recent RFC was closed as no consensus and the discussion continues about whether or not to include content. Some advice on how to proceed would be very welcome. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 04:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

When is it ok to hyperlink Far-right in BLP

I have a concern related to linking Far-right (also linked as far-right politics within a BLP. I'm posting here to get editor thoughts. A typical example can be seen here where we state that sources have called a US politician "far-right".[23] There is no dispute that media sources have called Lauren Boebert "far-right". My concern is our definition of "far-right" clearly associates the term with Nazism in the third and fourth sentence of the lead as well as with a lead picture that includes the Nazi flag. While we can clearly see that the sources use "far-right", in most cases we don't know what they mean by far right. MOS linking [24] notes that we should be careful when using hyperlinks, "link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author.". Clearly we aren't linking within a quote when saying "sources call [person] far-right". However, we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent. The problem is "far-right" (and other similar terms) can cover a range. A "far-right" US politician might be described as such because they are a strong supporter of gun rights ("guns for all!") and strongly oppose illegal immigration ("deport all illegals"). This would be especially true if they are part of a group of hardliners who frequently hold up bills to get what they want. That doesn't mean they are in any way shape or form related to Neo-Nazis. However, a hyperlink to far-right does imply the association. Something similar is true on the left where someone like Bernie Sanders or AOC may be called "far-left" but we wouldn't reasonably associate them with Maoist or Stalinist type communism. Is there a good way to handle this? Should the Neo-nazi etc associations in the Far-right article lead be toned down? Perhaps made more like the lead of Far-left which has fewer obviously negative associations. Springee (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Whenever use is appropriate linking is appropriate, the exception is quotes which should in general not contain links that the original quote does not. Also a note that we don't use "far-left" in either the Sanders or AOC articles because we lack reliable sources which refer to them that way, not other concerns. Perhaps a better example would be subjects who actually are far-left? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

"This shouldn't be linked since we don't know that the people who call her far right agree with the Wiki definition which includes neo-nazism. This is similar to why we don't include hyperlinks in quotes". Lol, no. This "rule" does not exist. Zaathras (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You are correct this "rule" doesn't exist. However, I'm arguing that the same thinking that resulted in the MOS section I quoted should apply in this situation. You are free to provide a logical reason why you think I'm wrong. Dismissive "lol" type replies should be kept to user talk pages. Springee (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion about a possible canvassing violation that has devolved into back and forth arguing. Springee, in the future please ping someone from the discussion, or note that you've alerted someone in the discussion and explain the reason for the notification to avoid canvassing concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This is also a pretty blatant WP:CANVASS violation, and may have to go to WP:AE. Zaathras (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC) It might be canvasing if this was a RfC or similar question. I pinged the editor in question because they raised the exact point I am asking about here. Springee (talk) 16:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC) If thats what you wanted to do you should have pinged Bill Williams in your question with a link to them raising this exact point. Canvassing was not the answer, its just misleading to everyone who comments in good faith because you haven't been transparent with us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC) It isn't canvassing and Zaathras's bad faith accusation speaks more to their own POV rather than to the issue at hand. Springee (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Next time ping them in the question on the noticeboard and link to where they've raised this point. Then it won't look like canvassing, which this completely does. Are you in the process of notifying the other editors who had opinions about this in that discussion or was that your only notification? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This discussion is off topic. Bill Williams specifically mentioned this issue a while back so I notified them as the discussion may be of interest to them. Canvasing doesn't apply when we are having a generalized discussion vs trying to make an article level change. Springee (talk) 16:53, 23 September 2023 (UTC) I appreciate that there may be some sort of misunderstand here but canvassing applies to all discussions. If thats the only person you meant to notify then it absolutely was canvassing and you owe Zaathras a pretty massive apology for your baseless allegations of editing in bad faith. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Again this is off topic. Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question. Instead it can reasonably be seen as an attempt to derail the discussion. I don't agree my notice to BW was a violation of canvasing and to come out with such a strong accusation first rather than just asking on my talk page strikes me as a second accusation of bad faith. None of this off topic discussion is addressing the question at hand. Springee (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC) You solicited the opinion of a linked-minded participant of a past, similar discussion. That is canvassing. Period. Zaathras (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Please review WP:AGF. Springee (talk) 21:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Zaathras's opening "dismissive" comment was precisely on point: we follow what reliable sources say. Whining about being disagreed with is unbecoming, as is responding with "Please review WP:AGF" when someone points out that you have run afoul of behavioral guidelines –– especially right after you yourself have claimed that your opponent's effort to engage with you doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question. This is all kinds of messy, Springee. Generalrelative (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) Zaathras is welcome to say they disagree with my concern and provide a reason why. They did not. "Whining" about canvasing etc when this is an open discussion isn't helpful. Zaathras might have honestly been concerned about canvasing and could have said so in a good faith way. Your comment about "following what sources say" suggests that you have missed the question. At no point has anyone, myself included, suggested that we not include a DUE comment like "sources say [person] is far-right". I assume you don't mean that the cited sources include a hyperlink to the Wikipedia far-right article. Springee (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC) This is how Wikipedia works. If sources reliably call someone "far-right" then we include the term and wikilink it so that readers can easily learn more about the topic. You may not like that this means Boebert is conceptually associated with other far-right things like Nazism but that's not up to you. See Rhododendrites' comment below. This isn't complicated. Generalrelative (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2023 (UTC) "Zaathras's opening dismissive comment doesn't reflect a good faith attempt to address my question." and "Please review WP:AGF." don't really go together... You can't stamp all over AGF and then demand that others adhere strictly to it... Thats a double standard and a hypocritical one at that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC) That is a fair point. In return I will note that Zaathras opened with a less than good faith set of comments. It certainly is harder to assume good faith in return under such circumstances. That said, I'm open to appologizing for failing to AGF if Zaathras is willing to do the same. It would be good to stick to the concern, even if ultimately others don't agree. Springee (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC) I don't see the bad faith, but then again you don't see the canvassing so I guess we both have blindspots. I've said as much as I think is relevant on the topic, I'm not here to badger you and I'l take a seat to let other editors with different views have their say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Wait a minute, you admit you wronged editor A, but will not apologize to editor A without a deal that editor B (who pointed out your error) apologizes to you for something? O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Umm... no. Zaathras joined the topic with a condescending reply and falsely suggesting I claimed some rule existed when I did no such thing. They followed with a clear, public accusation of canvasing. That is reasonable grounds on which to presume they feel I was operating in bad faith. It is certainly understandable that a reasonable editor may view those as less than good faith behaviors. This isn't a RfC where the ratio of !votes matter. This is like the recent ONUS discussions [25] where getting a range of views is helpful. Another editor who has seen the same issue may have other examples (thus illustrating a wider issue) or different insights. Example excluded, this isn't an article specific concern so we can discuss it in general terms. So, no, the ping doesn't violate CANVAS and Zaathras was welcome to raise the concern on my talk page rather than here where it simply sidetracks the discussion. Springee (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Umm... yes. Springee, are you even aware that you have now spent more bits and bytes discussing me than you have spent discussing what you came here to, um, discuss? I think this pretty much concludes that your initial BLP filing is on such weak ground that you're no longer even trying to defend it. Zaathras (talk) 00:50, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The crux of the argument would seem to be that the line at MOS:LINKSTYLE which explicitly concerns quotes should be applied to text outside of quotes because we are implying that our definition corresponds with their intent. I'd disagree with the premise, except insofar as absolutely everything we write is indeed based on what someone else has written. As for the more general principle, we also call her a gun rights activist, linking to the article right to keep and bear arms. We link to that article even though it includes gun rights in Mexico, despite the fact that she has never (AFAIK) advocated for gun rights in Mexico. This is a less loaded (pun acknowledged but not endorsed) example, but just to say that many articles cover broad subjects with many dimensions, and not all of them have to apply. Any use of left/right labels provides a reductive summary of what someone's actual positions are, but it's a standard way to talk about it, for better or worse. Sources are typically going to call someone a "far-right politician" when they have expressed support for some range of far-right ideologies, not absolutely every single one of them. If the sources say someone holds "a far-right stance on immigration" that's not sufficient to call someone far-right without that qualification, but when someone (like Boebert) holds many such positions it should be unsurprising that she receives the broader label. Once that's established, linking is basic wiki style. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 to this. Generalrelative (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

In general I'm not opposed to such a hyperlink. However, I think we have a BLP concern when we even imply that a person is supportive or associated with neo-nazis. I do agree that we don't specifically claim that whom ever is using the "far-right" label is implying nazism but I think even the implication is a BLP issue. Perhaps the solution a better intro to far-right? Springee (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps things are fine the way they are? Generalrelative (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps. But if others have seen similar things perhaps this is a broader issues. I guess trying to figure out how to ask it in a broader way would have been helpful. There often seems to be a conflict when trying to ask a generalized question that people get hung up in the details of the specific example. Conversely, if you don't provide an example then people ask for one. Springee (talk) 00:30, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

My impression is that this issue perennially arises because there is a conflict in how two different groups of people use this word. Experts in the fields of political science and political philosophy seem to define far-right as something rather similar to fascism, and our article on far-right politics seems to follow the lead of these fields (as it should). However, US journalists covering American politics seem to use it to refer to hardliners in the Republican Party who have staunch right-wing viewpoints, without necessarily meaning they advocate for a militaristic ethnostate or something. So yes, we always come back to the argument "well the sources say it, so should we", but at the same time we do typically recognize that journalists often make errors regarding the physical and biological/medical sciences, so why would social sciences be any different?

All in all I'd suggest that we'd have less of these disputes if we only used such labels when academic sources (in relevant fields) use them and/or when a very high quantity or quality of news sources use them. And then the wikilink is of course fine. We'd want usage from respected and nonpartisan political analysis organizations, or experts in political science or political philosophy (perhaps reported on in the media), not just a handful of Vox thinkpieces, casual usages in an everyday news article about logjams in Congress or whatever, advocacy orgs like Media Matters for America, and the like.

None of this is to meant to be a specific comment on Lauren Boebert or any other specific scenario. I'm not that familiar with what she's up to and try to avoid having to hear too much about these people. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a serious problem with political comments reported on Wikipedia. The terms ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ , ‘far right’ and ‘far left’, do not have any agreed meaning in the real world, and it is unrealistic (and arrogant) for Wikipedia to assume that when anyone uses the term e.g. ‘far right’ they mean exactly what is said in our article on the subject. Therefore, there should not be a link. I have no view on Lauren Broebert as such – this is a general comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Having an "agreed meaning" is not relevant to the discussion. Note that there was an RfC in 2022, where the OP made the same (ultimately unsuccessful) argument they are making now. The closer did touch on the question of linkage to the article, but noted it, quote "...is not a problem of the article about Boebert". Zaathras (talk) 13:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression. Therefore, we don’t know that they mean the same as what is in our article. Therefore we should not link our article. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The closer also suggested that perhaps this may be an issue with the linked article. Please keep in mind that I'm only using these articles as examples. The issue of implied meaning is broader than just this example. Sweet6970 seems to get to the heart of the issue, "If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression." Springee (talk) 14:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

If an expression has no agreed meaning, then we cannot know what anyone means when they use the expression. I'm sorry but I find this to be the most outrageous form of pedantry. It can be said about literally anything. You have provided no evidence at all to suggest that there is any doubt as to what "far-right" means –– you've just tried to shift the burden of proof onto others. As a thought experiment: please prove to me that mathematicians and laymen mean the same thing when they say "circle" or "the number three", using only reliable sources. It's too bad that the Nazis have given all those other "very fine people" on the far right a bad name, but them's the breaks. Generalrelative (talk) 15:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A definite, narrow term like ‘the number three’ is not the same as a broad term like ‘right-wing’ ,‘left-wing’, ‘far-right’ , ‘far-left’. Speaking as a Brit, I have noticed that the political spectrum in the USA is completely different from the spectrum in the UK, so that ‘right-wing’ and ‘left-wing’ mean different things according to which country you’re talking about. And please do not make irrelevant comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Speaking as an American who lived in the UK for many years, I do not agree that that is the case. There are of course differences, but "completely different" is an absurdity. That's why you see e.g. European symbols of the far-right like the swastika at American far-right rallies –– and indeed, sometimes American symbols like the Confederate Battle Flag at European far-right rallies. And of course none of this is "irrelevant". Generalrelative (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect, Crossroads, I don't see this as a problem. Sure, people are always arguing about politics. But the solution is not to restrict sourcing only to academic journals in a field where coverage by academic journals is sparse. In practice this would lead to a huge number of articles about politicians missing key information about their political stances (in Boebert's case actually not, since she's high-profile enough to be discussed in academic work, and for the record often explicitly as "far-right" [26][27][28][29][30]). Secondly, I'm not convinced that there is a real difference between academic and journalistic understandings of the term "far-right". Just because most people are loath to be associated with Nazis doesn't mean that we should make an exception to the rule that we follow the best sources available, nor –– as has been suggested above –– that we should carve out some unique exception to WP:LINK. Generalrelative (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

In fact, journalists do not use political terms in the same way and lack the expertise. That's why analysis by journalists is not considered rs in Wikipedia.

Remember when Lord Jeffrey Archer was speaking on CNN about the death of Princess Diana? America's major cable news outlet managed to mangle two titles in a major news story. TFD (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Your first point is simply incorrect. Nothing in WP:RS suggests that analyses by journalists are generally unreliable. They just need to be attributed. This is all made very clear in WP:NEWSORG. Repeatedly insisting that journalists use the term "far-right" differently from poli-sci experts without providing evidence is tiresome. I'm an expert and I have not found this to be the case.

Not sure how to address your comment about Jeffrey Archer speaking to CNN because it doesn't seem to me to be on-topic. Are you really suggesting that being an expert on the pomposities of the British caste system has anything to do with matters of practical importance? It's perfectly possible to understand that the British right are often royalists (though I would argue that this is not necessarily more pronounced among the British far right, for whom white supremacy and anti-immigrant sentiment really forms the central ideological commitment –– just as it does in the U.S.) without caring at all for such anthropological curiosities. Generalrelative (talk) 16:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure TFD is incorrect? That would imply that no RSs ever use a loose/non academic definitions of this or any other commonly used terms? Suggesting that some or even many reporters do stick with a clear, academically rigorous definition (do we have a copy of that definition) may be true. But you are suggesting that all sources, even ones like VICE and Mother Jones (to pick on a few) would use an academic definition at all times. That seems to be a stretch. Since you say this is an area you know outside of Wikipedia, what source you would point to for the definition and what evidence do you have that the definition is never used loosely? Also parallel examples like TFD's are on point here. While I opened this discussion with a specific concern related to far-right, this certainly isn't the only example of a loose definition being used by non-experts. Consider a light hearted example, imagine an article that says, "may sources called the court hearing a circus". Perhaps tigers were on trial :) Springee (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

TFD does appear to be incorrect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Consider two possibilities and there relative likelihoods. One, that all reporters for all sources we would ever cite are going to cite have a strict and academically correct definition for any term that otherwise may be vague or imprecisely used in common speech. Two, that at least some sources we might use do not use a strict and academically correct definition at all times. Option two certainly looks more likely to me. Springee (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You can present an infinite amount of straw people for consideration, but consensus will only be reached when you contend with what other editors have actually written. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping that we can find some balance where we call can win. I do see what is being claimed. The claim was that the media is always using the term within an academic definition. How would we prove that? Certainly there are other examples where the media isn't as careful with definitions. Firearms rights people love to point out failures to distinguish between magazines and clip or semi-auto and auto firearms. Why would we assume that reporters writing for sources with a clear POV are going to be precise in their choice of words vs picking terms that may have an emotional hook with their readers? Springee (talk) 18:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be exaggerating the claim that was made for dramatic or rhetorical effect. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:26, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Horse Eye, and agreed. As I argued above, the burden of proof should be on those making extraordinary claims. In this case, the extraordinary claim is that journalists who are ordinarily considered reliable sources for reporting facts are too ignorant of what the term "far-right" actually means to be considered reliable when using it. Asking me to prove that this term is never used loosely is of course not the appropriate bar, and the example of a term like "circus" being used metaphorically entirely misses the point. Sources which describe Boebert as "far-right" are not doing so metaphorically, and we have no reason to suppose that they are at odds with academic usage. Indeed, I cited five examples above where academics describe her as precisely that. Since I now find myself repeating myself (and growing rather frustrated), I'm going to take this page off my watchlist for a while and step back from the discussion. I've made my position as clear as I can. If anyone would like to discuss with me in a more informal setting on my talk page they are welcome to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 18:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You specifically claimed expertise in this area. Are you saying that to say we should trust your word more than someone else's or are you saying that because you can provide some sort of evidence/data to back your views? Consider that the NYT warns we need to be careful about sources that mix reporting of fact with opinion of the writer [31]. We generally trust reporters to convey facts. We also generally say opinions need to be left to subject matter experts. So should we trust that when a source uses a loosely defined term that they are using it in a strict sense? Or should we listen to the NYT and be careful about the mixing of opinion/subjective claims and facts? Springee (talk) 18:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Did you just attribute the opinion of the independent Public Editor to the NYT in a complaint about mixing opinion with reporting? Does that seem ironic to you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Did the NYT run the article? The author does appear to have a background in the field ( Margaret Sullivan). Springee (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The Public Editor is an employee of the NYT, their job is to provide independent criticism of the paper... They do not speak for the paper and they don't publish articles they publish editorials (opinions). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Before I go, to briefly answer Springee's question about definitional sources, I'd suggest this recent report by the UK's Royal United Services Institute. See the definitions on p.9, and e.g. this pertinent quote:

While South African VRWE [violent right-wing extremism] discourse is largely based on locally relevant narratives, especially in the last few years it also borrows from international narratives. In particular, US-specific issues such as libertarianism, gun rights, hostility toward mainstream media, anti-authoritarianism, and ‘MAGA’ (Make America Great Again) slogans and narratives have gained increasing traction in the South African VRWE space online. The close connections between VRWE online movements in the US and South Africa was also demonstrated by the fact that the blocking of social media accounts and communities engaging with QAnon conspiracy theories following the January 6 storming of the US Capitol also affected South African accounts and online discourse significantly.

Anyone who tells you that the far-right doesn't operate as an international (or at least trans-Atlantic) movement isn't clued in to the relevant academic literature. Again, hit me up on my talk page if you have any further direct questions for me, including requests for additional bibliography. Generalrelative (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

It is true that these terms mean something in political science but they have become extremely dilute in general sources. Perhaps a WP:POLRS in the image of WP:MEDRS… Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

We should link it when the term is used, and we should use the term when multiple reliable sources do so. I think it's important that the lead of the Far-right politics article continue to make it clear that the term refers to multiple possible associations but does not imply that each association must be true for the term to apply. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

This to me is overlinking. The purpose of linking is to "increase readers' understanding of the topic at hand." Readers of Lauren Boebert's article are not going to say, "Her political views are really interesting, I want to read about Hitler and Mussolini." Furthermore, we don't even know if that is what the sources meant.

If you think her article should have a link somewhere to the political grouping she probably belongs to, I suggest Radical right (United States).

TFD (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Which just brings us full circle because Far-right politics#Radical right is ~90% of the US section at Far-right politics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Then link it to Far-right politics#United States. I might point out that the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe, has been studied separately and differs in a number of key areas. TFD (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

That is linking it to far-right politics, the question is about whether to link it to far-right politics or not... Not what section of far-right politics to link it to. We can do that second question after we've answered the first. If we dug up Henry Ford do you think he would agree that the the radical right in the U.S. developed independently of the extreme right in Europe? Note that they've been studied separately, but they've also been studied together. Yes its true that they've been studied separately, but you appear to be implying that they haven't been studied together which is untrue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You're assuming that "Far right" is about a coherent topic rather than a hodgepodge of things that have been called far right. TFD (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

When we link a word to an article the assumption is that the article is about what the word means in the text. If it doesn't, then we are misleading readers, which should not be one of our objectives. TFD (talk) 01:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to try to fight from my angle that we should be waiting for years (at leat 10) before we start using labels in wikivoice, as I think as long as there is a sufficiently strong demonstration via a source survey that academics and most media sources routinely use the term that we are then good to use it - id just prefer to see far more caution here. But I will stand on the issue that calling that out in the first sentence of a BLP is very much inappropriate per NPOV's tone requirement. Take any politican that is in the more moderate range (liberals and conservative) and you never see the person's political leanings in the first sentence, though usually is included in the first paragraph. Calling out politicians as far right in wikivoice (when appropriate) in the first sentence creates an attacking tone for telhe rest of the article. We (as a whole) are far too focused on calling out these people for their negatives and as such struggle to write appropriate tones for them. That's a much larger concern. Masem (t) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

For interest: an opinion piece in today’s Guardian arguing that there is no agreed meaning for ‘centrist’ in British politics. [32] It ends: ‘The UK is at a potential turning point, with most voters concluding that nothing works. In such a striking context, the media should stop applying the term “centrist” as if it is self explanatory. Meanwhile, no leader should depend on “the centre ground” as a reliable guide. “Centrists” do not agree on where they are, how they got there and where they need to turn next. They do not concur because there is no clearly defined terrain in politics marked “the centre ground”.’

If there is no agreement, even in single country, as to where the centre is, there can be no agreement about what ‘far right/left’ means.

Sweet6970 (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Richard Eastell

Apologies - I am new to this and trying to understand how to resolve this article on my father (Eastell). The user that created the article keeps reverting people's changes, making it very skewed towards one investigation (in which Eastell was found innocent), and is consistently doing so without explanation.

As it stands, this page is harmful to Eastell and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines on Biographies of living persons in several categories - in particular: - Guilty unless proven innocent: There are four "controversies", not one confirmation of a crime or misdemeanour having been committed (in one case the exact opposite) - Neutral point of view: The way the article has been written since its creation is clearly trying to make Eastell look like a guilty party - Further reading, External links, and See also: Again, Only negative things have been linked here - the first link only serves to attempt to make the subject look bad purely by its presence (he only appears in the references of the article and is not a subject), and the second link was someone Eastell was the whistle-blower on, yet it is placed there to make it look like he was involved alongside them (which is simply not the case). — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFrozenCookieMonster (talk • contribs)

You're deleting material that meets our content policies, not least because it comes with sources that meet our guidelines. Blanking this material isn't going to stand. Please learn more about editing at Wikipedia, and then discuss on the article talk page, proposing the edits you have in mind and giving the reasons, in connection with our policies. Using the talk page (instead of editing the article directly) is especially important given that you have a conflict of interest with respect to this article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:38, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Deleting this material is not good enough. You are blanking content which meets Wikipedia's guidelines. Please use the article's talk page instead and explain why this material should be deleted. FlutterDash344 (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

• I actually wonder if those first two paragraphs are not WP:UNDUE for what appears to have been a fairly minor issue. I am always concerned when a BLP on a subject that is notable for one reason ends up being a laundry list of "Controversies". I'm tempted to remove them. The last sentence is a bit of a nothingburger, as well. Black Kite (talk) 12:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree pretty strongly that this is a "minor issue". Most academic researchers are never involved in incidents like this. There's a reason it ended up being covered in repeated stories in The THE (and covered also in a separate publication): it is in fact an unusual thing. Consider the components: Eastell published a study where the drug maker did the research/analysis while Eastell himself didn't have full access to the data -- and other researchers took the view that the study overstated the benefits. Meanwhile he didn't disclose limits on access to the journal. And, the GMC uses the words "untrue" and "misleading" claims to describe what he did. Again -- all covered by a series of THE articles. Where I agree with you is re the final paragraph/sentence; this seems like more of a minor dispute. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I see you are the original author of this article (written in 2009) [33]. The original article seem like nothing more than an effort to publicize an academic controversy. A web search of "Richard Eastell" (both general search and news search) doesn't turn up anything about this controversy in the top pages I looked at. Looking at the current article I'm not sure about the NOTABILITY of the person and the article raises serious BLP concerns given it suggests academic fraud is the primary notable factor. I would say they are only marginally notable and given more than half the article seems to be to emphasize what Black Kite noted to be a fairly minor issue (I tend to agree) it's probably best just to AfD the whole thing. If not then the controversy section needs to be removed and the related content cut way down. Springee (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• I didn't read the whole article in detail but zooming out it does seem like something that results in a person leaving their academic position is likely DUE (or more correctly should be included per BALASP). However, the See Also tags that were restored look problematic to me. Both effectively state that the people involved committed academic fraud. It doesn't appear that the disputed edits state that as fact thus, for the same reason we wouldn't include a "BLPCAT:academics who committed fraud", we shouldn't include see also links that do the same. Also, the argument that the content meets our content policies based on sourcing is weak. Yes, it needs to meet WP:V but that doesn't mean it should be included per BALASP. We have a new editor who read the article and felt that the content in question, in effect, failed BALASP and BLP concerns (my read of their arguments). The responses here feel a bit too much like biting the newbie who's base read has merit even if they don't know the correct ALLCAPS words to reference in their arguments. The correct answer here is probably a middle ground between outright removal and status quo. Springee (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Other than the controversies, all the information is from the University of Sheffield or a paper authored by Eastell. Based on that, he fails notability.

  The controveries themselves are also non-notable. The Times Supplement story for example reported a GMC decision where Eastell was found "negligent" but not "deliberately dishonest." The GMC makes hears cases about doctors every day and they don't become notable unless they attract wide media attention.

  The article should be deleted. TFD (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Eastell. TFD (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Hardeep Singh Nijjar

Hardeep Singh Nijjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently deceased individual. There has recently been a push to describe him, in Wikivoice, and in both text and the infobox as the leader of a terrorist outfit. However—all the best sources—Reuters, Associated Press, New York Times, and so forth—are careful to describe this as the Indian government's characterization (and the subject himself denied all involvement or support for violence). I take no position on what's true or false here, but we absolutely cannot describe this guy in wikivoice as the leader of a terrorist group. More eyes appreciated. Neutrality^talk 15:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Tim Ballard

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see: Talk:Tim Ballard#RfC 2 (it's about how/whether to report allegations, based on what sources). Opener of the RfC complains that "no one" responded to the first one, so I guess listing it here should help.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that the opener of that RfC appears to have told a fib, the first RfC received a lot of responses and is still open. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Margaret Livingstone

The wikipedia page about me contains untrue libelous accounts under the heading 'controversy'. I tried deleting it, but it keeps re-appearing, apparently due to animal activists. I want my whole page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlivingstonehms (talk • contribs) 14:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• An IP and a few accounts have been trying to whitewash this article for a while. Again, we have a BLP which was formerly uncontentious but whose subject has been involved in multiple scientific controversies and since there was little to say about her previously, the article is now dominated by it. I have semi-protected the article to prevent the previous issues, but, like the article I commented on above, I suspect the "Controversies" section could usefully be shortened whilst losing little information. Black Kite (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that some coverage of the controversy is due. What is there is overlong, and relies too heavily on primary sources, some of them a little WP:FRINGE-y. I'd suggest a crisply written paragraph or two, sourced mainly to Science [34] and CBS [35]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Anyway, WP:BOLDly rewrote. Pinging @Black Kite: also @DaffodilOcean: as an established editor who seems to have done some substantive work on the page previously. I do not believe what was there before had a WP:NPOV, and it had a few unsourced and several self-published or similar statements. "Controversies" was a bad section title; I'm not sure that what I used instead ("Allegations of animal cruelty") is perfect, either. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I like the re-write. With this ping, I realized that some text has been added to the page since I last read it. Hence, there is an on-going need to keep an eye on this article. Nice job @Russ Woodroofe. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Elizabeth Berkley

I hope this is the right place to ask this. She has two different birth years 1972 and 1974. Here's a few newspaper articles from the 90s. They're dated May 1996, August 1996 and April 1998. And respectively list her age as 23, 24 and 25 which all match up to a 1972 birth year [36][37][38]. And these were published at time where journalists were less likely to copy information from internet websites.

Also here's a Los Angeles Times magazine from the end of 2012 which says she had just turned 40 [39]. Her high school yearbook is also on Classmates and she's listed as a senior of Calabasas High School in 1990[40].

The only thing I can find that supports 1974 and would probably be considered reliable is this interview from Newsweek which is dated April 2008 and where Berkley says she's 33[41]. I don't wanna outright say that she's lying about her age, but that's not uncommon for celebs to do so. For instance, Octavia Spencer admitted she had been lying about her age up to until a few years ago. And while some celebs do graduate a year or two earlier, it's usually mentioned in other articles. And I can't find anything that says Berkley was 15/16 when she graduated high school.

Asking for a consensus on what should be done on her Wikipedia page? Do we either

A) Remove the birth year that's currently listed(1974) and put in a note saying that there's conflicting info regarding her birth year.

B) Put in both birth years and cite the sources.

or

C) Leave the 1974 in the article as it comes from the subject herself. Kcj5062 (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• Celebrities have regularly been found lying about their age, that's not unusual. People are not reliable sources for their own personal information. If there are reliable sources supporting 1972 (which there appear to be in this case), leave it in. If there aren't, leave the birth date out completely. Black Kite (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's a normal thing to do. I'm no celebrity but I round my age all the time for those that ask out of morbid curiosity. JFHJr (㊟) 19:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with Black Kite. In an informational conflict, the WP:BLPSPS is a contentious source. OP's understanding of journalism in context is correct: they didn't check other sources, but took the subject's word for it, as is still done in most interviews. Because the BLPSPS sourced material conflicts and is contentious, it cannot support a later birth year, but the same sources may continue to support other prose. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  And on the other hand, you can't WP:SYNTH a birth date. Better to leave it out if you need to guess matriculation age and then do math on top of the reference to determine a birth year. JFHJr (㊟) 19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite@JFHJr

  Is there a way I can do a RfC here? There's an editor over at Berkley's page that seems pretty adamant about leaving the 1974 birth year up. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry, this is not WP:RfC so we shouldn't, can't, and hopefully don't RfC here. But at RfC they RfC, allegedly. JFHJr (㊟) 04:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe open a request on the article talk page? JFHJr (㊟) 04:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have removed the 1974 date as it is only sourced to a flaky celebrity website and, as the OP says, better sources suggest 1972. Black Kite (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Black Kite

  Watch out for the user Quaerens-veritatem. He's pretty determined to keep the 1974 date up. He actually accused me of disruptive editing. Kcj5062 (talk) 20:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Ben Aulich

Can some people please check new article Ben Aulich? It contains many negative claims about living people and criminal cases and conduct, and I can't access the sources to check if it is a fair and due article respecting all aspects of WP:BLP (like WP:SUSPECT and so on), or a hit piece / one sided view. Fram (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be written by someone close to Aulich, with a lot of citations that are more about his opponents that don't even mention Aulich. Maybe an attempt at synthesis. Not sure if this is a BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

After review, I've nominated this for AfD.[42] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts, it's straight up WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. The material you removed gives that away. Google Britney Higgins or Bruce Lehrmann if you want to get an idea for the motivation for that article given that's the bulk of the material that you removed, which had nothing to do with the subject. It's a hit piece on Shane Drumgold. The stuff about referring to a respondent in a civil dispute as being prosecuted speaks to the loaded language being used. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Tommy Villiers

Tommy Villiers sent me an email about four hours ago to ask that the family tree be removed from his article. I believe this was admissible per WP:BLPPRIVACY, seeing as its only sourcing was to specialist peerage books, but I wanted to check in just to be sure.--Launchballer 05:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit seems BLP-good to me. If there's a BLP-good source for it, maybe he can be mentioned at Villiers family. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Removing the family tree seems fine from a privacy perspective. Removing any mention of the Villiers family I pause at because of the image management implications -- the meme of the indie musician with rich/well-connected parents is well-known, and something people it applies to generally want to downplay. I see Grabergs disagrees, though, so just noting that for wider discussion. (This is of course assuming a usable source covers it.)

Given the DYK situation, "Tommy Villiers sent me an email" makes me pause a little. I'm still AGFing about the cause of the articles, but are you in contact with Piri & Tommy? Vaticidalprophet 11:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily against it, but I'd like to see BLP-good sources about Tommy Villiers the singer make the connection, not some OR:ish connection of dots. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Piri I contacted in February to ask if she would consider donating images for her article, and I've been to one of her concerts and tried to attend another. This is the first time I've had anything to do with Villiers (he contacted me using the contact form on my website). I've had no further contact, all the articles were written entirely at my option (my autism means I write exclusively about special interests).--Launchballer 12:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think removing the tree was a good idea either way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I was using the one page of Debrett's Peerage available on Google Books preview for the immediate family, a copy of Burke's Peerage at Fulham Library to take me up to Thomas Lister Villiers, and then a source about Lister Villiers to take me up to John Russell, 1st Earl Russell. Both peerage books are reliable per WP:RSP, but I wonder if they both come under WP:DUE as they exist in no further reliable sources (well, thepeerage.com, but that's a self-published blog).--Launchballer 12:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I think having the tree in there was probably WP:UNDUE. I'd consider those sources reliable, and I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to assert that he's a member of the Villiers family on those grounds (others would probably allow less latitude), but the fact that it's taken that much work to assemble the genealogy suggests to me that it's mostly a genealogical curiousity—out in the Oort cloud of younger sons of younger sons, where membership in the family hasn't brought them noticeable levels of prestige. (I brought his great-great-great-great-grandfather to GA some years back; it makes a good read, if I do say so myself.) Choess (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Being a member of the Villiers family seems to be trivia, given how many generations they are removed from important/wealthy members of the family. I agree with the removal and there's no reason to mention it unless RS specifically make the connection. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Karen McCarthy Woolf year of birth

Please see Talk:Karen_McCarthy_Woolf#Removing_year_of_birth_from_Karen's_biography: should we remove this poet's reliably-sourced year of birth because her friend says she is "uncomfortable" with it? I've replied fairly negatively, but thought I'd best check here as I'm not familiar with such requests. PamD 20:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally, we often give special consideration to subjects who request their birthdate be removed, and will often remove a full birthdate from an article upon the subject's request, because with identity theft and whatnot, it is considered a privacy issue by many, and we respect that. In such cases, we would generally use just the year instead. In this case, all we have is the year, and there is not as much of a privacy concern for that, at least from our perspective, but there may be some unforeseen reason the subject feels it is, and I would at least try to treat that with some weight and respect.

The thing about birthdates is, it's really just statistical data, not much different from height, weight, eye color, favorite cereal, etc. Albeit, nice info to have when we can get it, nine out of ten times it really adds no useful information that the reader absolutely needs in order to understand the subject. In other words, most of the time the article will read just the same without it, so that's another thing to weigh. In some cases it's necessary to distinguish between people with the same name, but the question I would ask myself is, is the date really necessary or can we do without it? To help, BLPPRIVACY says that a birthdate should be found in multiple sources, which as I read it means not one, not a couple, not even a few, but multiple sources, such that we can reasonably infer that the subject is ok with us publishing it too. (If they did, at some point we'd expect they they would've contacted those sources and asked for the date to be redacted, which any good RS will do upon request.)

So, in deciding this, I would have to weigh all those factors against each other and see which way the scale tips. It may be best to leave it, omit it, or simply narrow it own to a decade, such as the 1960s. However, the other issue we have is that the request comes not from the subject, but from some anonymous person claiming to be a friend, so that adds a whole new level of iffiness to the whole equation. I suppose in this case I would want to hear it directly from the subject before making any decision. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ageism is definitely something that happens. I can imagine that the subject of a BLP looking for employment, romance, or an audience might not want it known that they are in their late 50s, etc. I have no idea whether this might apply in this case, but it should be considered in general. So, yes, I think there can be significant privacy concerns even for year-only birthdates. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The year seems ok per WP:DOB. We can remove it per WP:BLPKIND policy, it's editorial discretion where to draw the line in this case. I'm ok with removing it as a courtesy, but redacting is to far IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Coco Lee

Hi there. I’m not familiar with the procedure but I guess this is probably the right place to address the issue. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Competence_is_required, the article’s talk page, and the page’s history. Thanks! (missing signature for Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2023‎)

Hi Dustfreeworld. Wasn't sure which one of you I was talking to at first. I get a much better idea of the dispute from the history than from either of those other two pages, but I do declare, that is quite a lot of history to go through. My suggestion when coming to boards like this is to try as clearly and concisely as possible explain what the problem is from your perspective, so we can go into it knowing what we're looking for. Remember, we're new to this dispute, so explain it like you're talking to a newcomer.

The first thing I will note to everyone involved is that potential BLP violations should be removed from the article and not be restored until there is consensus to do so, not the other way around. With BLPs, it's far better to err on the side of caution, even if other parties feel (maybe rightfully so) that the info should be there, we need to reach a consensus before restoring it.

Next, the article needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Currently, it's more like part bio and part gossip column. I get really, really nervous when I see nearly every sentence supported by 3 to 5 or more refs. In some cases, two or three concurring refs are good for info that is likely to be disputed. People often have a tendency to think the more refs the better, but too many like that actually throws up a big red-flag for synthesis. Most times a single ref can support multiple sentences, entire paragraphs or even entire sections. There is usually very little reason to to use multiple refs for a single sentence unless y'all are combining them to come to a novel conclusion Let alone multiple refs for each and every sentence. It makes the whole article look like synth, even if it's not.

Then, we seem to have a lot of really exhaustive details, especially surrounding her death and medical history. The extensive lists of medical information is worrisome in itself, because all of that needs extremely good, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, which I doubt we have there. Encyclopedias are quick reference sources, which people can use to get a quick handle on a subject without being bogged down by all the intricate details. They're not supposed to be full novellas about the subjects. We're here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The trick is being able to summarize it all into a relatively small and easily absorbed package, and in that it needs a lot of work. I don't have time for that right now, but what I would suggest is going around and viewing good articles on other celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian, and note the differences in tone, formatting, brevity, and coherence. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld should not have tied ANI into this. I posted there a couple of days ago because they had not engaged in the discussion starting on September 13 about sources for the cite check that they had initiated [43][44]. In the mean time, they reverted the article and posted a template on my talk page. I understand the importance of concensus but they seemed to be ignoring good faith discussion [45]. The article's talk section is where the content and sources are being explained. Vacosea (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Vacosea, please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations, which I perceived as libels. And please note that, as you have already been told (and you seem to be ignoring), potential BLP violations should be removed from the article immediately per WP:BLP. For those who want to know the truth, please see the reply I posted at ANI. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld I'm going to reiterate what I said on WP:ANI here: do not use words like libel towards other editors on Wikipedia, as that can be considered a violation of No Legal Threats. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no legal threats here. I’m not billionaire and definitely won’t spend money to take legal action on this kind of things ;) I’m just describing my feelings. Perhaps I should say “personal attacks” instead? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Roza Otunbayeva

Recent additions at Roza Otunbayeva might need a few more eyes on them, as they appear to be deliberate additions of negative content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The recent history indicates the following WP:BLP concerns: 1) WP:UNDUE discussions – whole subsections – of third parties (a meta BLP concern: even a Hollywood actor gets mentioned); and 2) WP:BLPCRIME accusations of wrongdoing that are not adjudicated as such. The negative prose is supported by an inordinate amount of background about third parties. That said, a politician being accused of rights violations as a member of government may be biographically significant if it's reflected in significant coverage by reliable sources. In my opinion, that threshold is met. It's a question of paring down all the prose, keeping reliable refs, to say the subject "was accused by international bodies and individuals of having committed several human and political rights violations and failures during her tenure." There's just very little room for it in her biography here. JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Dispute regarding biography of a living person.

Nature of dispute: I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia going back at least to 2004. Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. That is to say, for the better part of two decades, no one questioned my scholarly credentials or the content of my biographical entry. Then, for no apparent reason, my biographical entry recently got changed. The earlier version was a short, FACTUAL description. The current version, however, is no longer factual. Instead, it is a rather biased, unflattering OPINION. I have requested that the earlier version (with some minor updates) be RESTORED. For details, please see the lengthy “talk” section associated with the entry, which appears to have reached an impasse. Consequently, I am resorting to the dispute resolution process to resolve this issue. I feel that this is important, not only for restoring the factual content of my own biographical entry, but also for Wikipedia itself. If this can happen here, it can happen elsewhere and to others, thus affecting the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and raising the question as to whether Wikipedia can still be seen as a reliable, unbiased resource. Thank you. Allan R. Bomhard.