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.

Alexander_Greba

Alexander Greba The biography section of this article does not provide any sources; With the exception of the length of the subjects prison sentence. The linguistic characteristics suggest that the origin of the article is not a person who understands the English language. The talk page sates that part of the article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia page but it is not reasonable for contemporary translation software to lack proficiency to such a severe degree. The information provided sounds as though it was either; made up, or learnt from gossip. The entire biography needs to be deleted or rewritten.

Grover Furr

May I please ask if this source supports the addition of revisionist for Grover Furr. Specifically, the sentence in the article is:

"Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin".

The source is Haynes, John Earl; Klehr, Harvey (2003). In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage. San Francisco: Encounter Books. pp. 26–27. ISBN 9781893554726. May I provide the quote from the text:

While historians led the way, politically committed academics from other fields eagerly jumped onto the revisionist band-wagon. In the course of reviewing a book by two fellow leftist scholars, Barbara Foley, an English professor at Rutgers Univer-sity, objected to their critical stance toward “Stalinism,” writing that “the term ‘Stalinism’ perhaps needs deconstruction more than any other term in the contemporary political lexicon.” She went on to endorse Arch Getty’s revisionist account of the Soviet Union and labeled Robert Conquest an “offender against what I consider responsible scholarship.” In her own book, after some perfunctory acknowledgement that there was a dark side to Stal-inism, Foley enthusiastically praised its “tremendous achieve-ments . . . the involvement of millions of workers in socialist construction, the emancipation of women from feudalistic prac-tices, the struggle against racism and anti-Semitism, the foster-ing of previously suppressed minority cultures . . . the creation of a revolutionary proletarian culture, in both the USSR and other countries.” Grover Furr, an English professor at Montclair State University, lauded the creation of Communist regimes in an essay-review entitled “Using History to Fight Anti-Commu-nism: Anti-Stalinism Hurts Workers, Builds Fascism.” In Furr’s view, “billions of workers all over the world are exploited, mur-dered, tortured, oppressed by capitalism.

Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. This quotation defines Barbara Foley and Furr as "revisionists", "leftists" and apparently neo-Stalinists. Authors of the book describe views by Foley and Furr as something ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I would leave the whole "best known" clause out, as so: "...at Montclair State University. Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history..." And then discuss Haynes/Klehr's criticism in the body, keeping in mind that they're not disinterested observer academics but considered themselves opponents. From Harvey Klehr:

"The disagreements between the two camps were only partly generational, because some traditionalists, like myself and my long-time co-author John Haynes, were roughly the same age as our revisionist counterparts. To some degree, the combatants were divided by current political loyalties, with most revisionists locating themselves at least on the left wing of the Democratic Party, if not as members of various socialist groupings. But traditionalists themselves ranged from such self-identified socialists as Irving Howe to conservative Republicans."

Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

So, according to this quotation, there were serious disagreements between two "camps" which were "only partly generational". The disagreements are huge: author even calls these sides "combatants". Importantly, author notes that the views of "traditionalists" (mainstream historians) did not depend on the politics ("traditionalists themselves ranged from such self-identified socialists as Irving Howe to conservative Republicans"). This is because they relied on historical facts and science, as opposed to personal political agendas. My very best wishes (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Can I ask you if you think that "revisionist" should stay in the lead as with or without attribution? Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. What I meant to say is that I don't understand if "best known" or "who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin". Maybe I'm tired, but I don't 100% understand your meaning.Stix1776 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Revisionist is sourced, but I don't really recommend it and would prefer to avoid it in the lead if we can. Revisionist has multiple meanings, within the study of history generally meaning challenging the established consensus, or specifically the "revisionist schools" of thought for example in Soviet studies. It also has political connotations in Marxist thinking. On one hand, we want to trust the reader to follow Wikilinks if they don't understand something, on the other we still want to avoid predictable misunderstandings of non-specialist readers. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

"Revisionist" must stay in the biography. The only way that Furr is notable at all is his revisionist writings. If he did not make a furor with his revisionist claims, he would not have a Wikipedia biography. We are being kind to call him revisionist, as his views are also denialist. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. But in fact he is a text book example of a denialist. My very best wishes (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Editors seem intent to ignore the opinion expressed in this noticeboard. This discussion seems dead. Am I allowed to bring this to the Dispute Resolution Board?Stix1776 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Navalny; Amnesty International

Editor has been seemingly targeting all information that they clearly don't want to be shown and I can see it's been occurring for years.[1][2] [3][4][5] They know the information is correct yet they use flimsy reasoning to remove it. Today I had earlier added in this edit; (that Navalny refused to renounce his past controversial nationalistic videos (that's the focus) despite being asked to in numerous interviews. And that instead he repeatedly stated he holds no regrets in making those videos.[6][7] This is vital context to the topic and wasn't present before, but was quickly removed by them completely.[8] They are claiming they are just making it clearer in the edit description. But actually they are just really omitting all the info I added in completely. I got no interest in an edit war over something that should not be removed for mere political reasons. And looking at the guys long term past conduct since 2021 in seemingly doing the same back and forth edit warring with Mhorg. [9][10] and using bad arguments against multiple others in a recent thread that I made.[11] I really don't think it's possible to reason with them and why I request assistance to address them, or to add in my edit as I think such info obviously cannot be removed and it's disruptive to keep censoring that. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If I may add another such example of attempts to "alter" cited statements in favor of Navalny: The article incorrectly stated that Navalny was expelled from the Yabloko party for opposing its leaders, however, this was neither supported by the source that was in the article nor by the official statement of the party itself, I fixed that, so that the article reflects what the source actually says [12]. Then the forementioned user went in and added back the incorrect information (albeit not removing my quote of the source - they only "watered down" the quote I added, but they didn't add the context that kicking out Navalny from the party was a step that the party had considered even before he opposed the party leader, which is clearly stated in the source article): [13]. The reason for their edit is also WP:OR, as there is no source supporting their claim that "The actual reason was Yavlinsky collaborating with Kremlin". I literally included a quote of the primary source (the party's press release) that states the reason for expelling Navalny, plus, reliable sources such as Reuters, but this user still just changes that edit with the unsourced claim of "Yavlinsky collaborating with Kremlin"...? Obviously, their edit was reverted again: [14]. On the talk page they also argued to remove all mentions of Navalny's nationalist views and questionable statements from the article, because "this page is already too big" [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Nakonana (talk) 20:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what you guys are talking about. This content is prominently included on pages about Navalny and Amnesty, and no one objected to include it. How much should be included is a legitimate question, and it was discussed on article talk pages. I would say less, but whatever consensus on this might be. My very best wishes (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Josh Cahill

Josh Cahill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We could use some assistance with this BLP.

Specifically with deciding to include an event orchestrated by a PR/advertorial company named AeroTime, and when it should be included, if it should be rather bland and factual like in this diff or more elaborate, including who handed out the award, which people were part of the crew etc, like in this diff.

I'm more partial to the first diff, because I think it's more in line with WP:BLPSTYLE. But there are a couple of editors who insist on reverting to the more elaborate 3 paragraph revision. Maybe I'm just wrong, that's fine, but we could really use some more eyes on this.

This is being discussed in the AeroTime reliability section.

Other than that, even beyond this specific matter, I think the entire article could use a clean-up of cruft and suggestions from people who have experience with BLP. ConcurrentState (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

You removed well sourced information and information citated from the well known websites like Business Insider, BBC, Daily Mail which all are RS on Wikipedia.

If anyone have question on Aero Time reliability then that information can be removed or may be a better citation tag can be placed. Tanhasahu (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Um I'll be blunt here, I don't know if anyone who thinks WP:DAILYMAIL is an RS should be going anywhere near BLPs. Even WP:BUSINESSINSIDER isn't a clear RS so at best should be used with caution on BLPs. The BBC at least is really a RS. But anything source only to the Daily Mail should be killed with fire unless an actual RS can be found. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out, that User:Tanhasahu began editing the exact same article shortly after and is arguing the exact same points as User:SajidKhan1235 who the starter of this section was originally in dispute with. Another account there, User:Instant History, is editing the exact same areas as the other two, and edited a page with a promotional tag on it created by a suspected sockmaster. DarmaniLink (talk) 09:04, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I began editing with good faith and was not aware that there is a debate going on the talk page. But, after reviewing the talk page I have made comments to the talk page. The removed information was cited with BBC which is reliable source. I was not sure about the source AeroTime reliable or not so I placed a better citation needed tag as usual. And, already a SPI is going on so everything will get clear after the investigation. That will clear that I am not associated with any of the listed accounts and my edits were good faith. I am seeing so many Wikipedia pages were being hijacked by the haters. First they make IP edits and then they revert those IP edits with a fresh account to represent they're stopping vandalism on Wikipedia. But, behind the curtains they are making Wikipedia worse place for readers as the information not remain neutral. But, other experienced editors can't see such things and blames others who were trying to make good faith edits. That's rise a question of editing Wikipedia for the editors who are doing edits as hobby and want Wikipedia a better place of information for the world. Wikipedians must look into this matter to stop this kind of page hijacking on Wikipedia. @DarmaniLink, have you checked the edit history of @ConcurrentState? Isn't there anything fishy? Does he have the good faith while editing this page? Tanhasahu (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Where is the source that says it was an orchestrated PR event? SajidKhan1235 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, having looked at the article history and talk page, it seems to be an extreme mess with plenty of questionable almost definitely CoI editing. The stupidest thing is is that I actually think given the limited sourcing, some of the stuff the CoI editors are trying to achieve might be reasonable. Notably, I'm unconvinced there's anyway reason to include his birth name nor where he was born or what citizenship he has. If only the CoI editing was more reasonable and this had been restricted to one editor who actively declared their CoI and restricted themselves to talk page edits, and posting here if needed but never editing the article directly except for extreme cases; maybe we would have removed the birth name and any mention of where he was born. However that would also mean they couldn't do the promotional stuff, so maybe that's why it never happened. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Following the current talk page discussion there is a lot of visible biased toward the subject. For example Concurrent State who is almost exclusively focused on Josh Cahill's page. He started two discussions about having all awards removed based on his research which isn't backed by any sources. The talk page also refers to a link at a forum where editors are mentioned and the subject is being called a fraud which questions neutrality of the editors, which was also admitted on the talk page. It seems that anything that slightly shows any positive of the youtuber is deliberately removed while the incident section is maintained with questionable sources and not in line with WP:NOTNEWS.

Another interesting observation is a recent edit on Aero Dili's page, when @Some1 removed the edits on there based on WP:NOTNEWS & WP:RECENTISM but at the same time he has been ok with them being added to Cahill's page. Lots of double standards are applied here.

The suggested changes are well sourced by a BBC article or DW but ConcurrentState insists that his version is the only truth without any sources suggesting it is promotional. SajidKhan1235 (talk) 10:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no bias towards the subject, whether negative or positive.

I do have a bias against spending three paragraphs on a relatively minor event from a career perspective to list every single person involved, down to who handed the award, who flew the plane and stopping short of listing the pets of all the people present. Especially when the main source is a publicity company that sells advertorials and other publicity services and commissioned the subject to document the event in their efforts to create publicity.

Documenting the presence of all those people might be suitable on their own BLP or that of the airline, but I don’t think it’s relevant for this BLP. That doesn’t make me biased against the subject, it’s me trying to stick to the WP:BLPSTYLE.

But maybe I’m wrong, and that’s why we’re here on the notice board.

As for neutrality of the editors at large, I can’t speak for others. But I will point out that there’s more affordance on talk pages, as long as the actual article maintains NPOV. And as far as I can tell, non of the perceived biases and what not have seeped into the article itself.

As for @Some1, again I can’t speak for them, but I don’t see an inconsistency here. What can be relevant for one article, might not be for another, even when talking about the same event. ConcurrentState (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

If you are so concerned with the WP:BLPSTYLE why haven't you turned your focus on the incident section which is full of unnecessary details but that doesn't seem to bother you at all. Your only concern seems to have his awards removed. When can we expect your actions on these matters since you seem so worried about the integrity of Wikipedia? SajidKhan1235 (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This is basically from top to bottom how I feel about it.

It could’ve been like the CGPGrey situation and the request, imho anyways, wouldn’t have been unreasonable.

But like you said, having to show your cards would’ve been detrimental to promotional efforts. So that might’ve caused the hesitation on their end.

To me what’s especially egregious is reading along on the talk page and purposefully causing link rot of every link that’s discussed and leveraging the fact that they travel so much to use IP sock puppets in an effort to muddy the consensus process. ConcurrentState (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

For further clarity, I'm unconvinced we need a request although it sure would have made things less confusing. The sourcing for the name seems very limited compared to the sourcing for the public name, and we do have strong evidence even if not directly from RS tor the subject, that the subject has made attempts to conceal it. IMO that's enough per WP:BLPPRIVACY to exclude it. The issue is more that I think the BLP reasonableness of some of the things the questionable editors are trying to achieve has been lost because of the extremely poor way it's been approached, as often happens in WP:DOLT like situations. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

As WP:BLPRIVACY states: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. His birth name isn't widely published. Out of 500+ articles none is mentioning it. There is an article from 2009 which is the only claimed source and if @ConcurrentState was so worried about the integrity of Wikipedia he would certainly act on it, however his only concern is to have awards removed from the page instead of actually following guidelines. Also his editing history is very suspicious... and yet he hasn't provided a single source to back up his claim of recent edit of it being a promotional event and it is solely based on WP:NOR, which once against collides with his views on upholding the rules of Wikipedia. SajidKhan1235 (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we take it down a notch with the pings? I get it, I’m the big bad. I’d rather you talk behind my back at this rate.

I’m pretty much on the same page with @Nil Einne w/r/t the name, but let’s not resort to WP:GASLIGHTING here.

Before that whole name discussion was going on, the handful of Freie Presse articles cited on the article were all stating his legal name, and then suddenly, during the discussion, the name disappeared from one article and the other articles where taken offline. When then subsequently it was pointed out that a copy of those articles still existed in the Wayback Machine, those archives were then suddenly removed as well. All that’s left is an archive.today archive that happened to capture the name being changed in the FP article, showing the legal last name after the stage name.

Those were also the only articles that contributed to the notability question by the way, and while I seriously wonder(ed) if this isn’t a prime AfD candidate, I instead tried to bring it up to par with BLP guidelines.

So how about instead of complaining about me, you constructively contribute to the discussion on how to improve it or argue why every living soul that was present for that event needs to be mentioned?

You love pointing fingers, but if this article is so near and dear to your heart, it might be better to put some work into it by either constructively participating in the discussion on how to improve the article or by making your case. ConcurrentState (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that you still haven't provided a source for your claims regarding the AeroTime issue while you overturn other editors who have provided reliable citations. When can we expect to deliver these? You have no interest in find a consensus but only to have your version to be published. It's a very clear case of WP:NOR.

Quote by @ConcurrentState: "I do have a bias against spending three paragraphs on a relatively minor event from a career perspective to list every single person involved" yet you have no issue with several paragraphs on the incident section with absolute minor events. BBC, DW and other big media outlets have reported on the flight so I don't think it's a minor incident. Again when can we expect you to act on the incident section?

This online forum here shows clear biased toward the subject discussing edits on his page. Why is the subject not allowed to protect his privacy against individuals like doc2austin who is heavily involved in editing the article according to Jpatokal? Do you think this is fair? Do you want your name to be published? I don't think so.

Why are you so eager to have his awards removed? SajidKhan1235 (talk) 07:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The onus isn't on him to prove it isn't a reliable source, it's on you to prove it is. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

@SajidKhan1235, I have already told the other editors that something fishy is cooking behind the curtains and now you provided the online forum discussion that's going against him. But, I don't think they will take any actions against it. congratulations, they already placed multiple issues tag to the article instead taking actions against biased edits.

@SajidKhan1235 They work in a syndicate to defame any person's page so don't hope for any good faith actions will be taken on this page. They all will point fingers to you that only you're the wrong instead of taking proper actions. Don't be surprised if the page gets deleted in the next few months.

@DarmaniLink A question for you. Why we can't place a "Citation Needed" tag to that information till the reliable source found instead removing that information? If we can't do this then I have seen thousands of the pages with such tag and information on Wikipedia we also need to go to all the pages and remove such information. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

You absolutely can, it wouldn't even be tagbombing at that point. The article is to be blunt, really poorly written. However, information that isn't cited may be removed at any time DarmaniLink (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Stating here for clerical reasons, An account matching the name of the PR company which published the source in contention was found as a sock of an oversight banned individual involved in this dispute.
Special:Diff/1210725103
There is clear evidence of coordinated disruptive editing around this topic. If this is ever revisted, please take this into consideration. DarmaniLink (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Contest this page to AfD, Josh Cahill doesn't seem notable enough. All the airline incidents seems publicity stunts nothing else. Tanhasahu (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the article in question has been taken to AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Cahill. Some1 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Heiner Rindermann

I'm concerned that material on Heiner Rindermann linking his academic research to racist and white supremacist beliefs is poorly sourced and possibly inaccurate, in violation of WP:BLP. Given the contentious nature of the material, I would like it to be deleted pending discussion on the talk page, but am reluctant to re-revert until I am more familiar with the source material. Extra eyes on the article would be appreciated. Nangaf (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, many of the sources specifically refer to Rindermann, e.g. [20] [21] which is completely acceptable to include in a BLP. It looks like some of the sources that don't mention Rindermann were added to explain the fringe nature of Mankind Quarterly, so I am indifferent on removing those. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, your response was constructive. To be clear, I am not questioning the fact that Rindermann has contributed to Mankind Quarterly, Intelligence, or the UCL conference. I am also not questioning the fact that intelligence research has historical links to eugenics. What I think is unjustified is taking the context of eugenic research from the 19th century up until the 1960s, applying that context anachronistically to current research questions in psychology, and then labelling researchers who conduct such research as motivated by racism. I think it is at least *plausible* that this is what the media allegations against the ISIR conference attendees do. Wikipedia bios should, I believe, take pains to avoid endorsing such potentially damaging accusations. There is a Wikipedia article on MQ already, and I am perfectly happy for discussions of whether or not contributors to the journal are racist to take place on that page. I just don't think it's appropriate for a biography because it gives the appearance of a smear by association.

On the other hand, if you could show me a reference that showed Rindermann had directly endorsed racist or eugenic points of view, then such commentary might be justified and provide appropriate context.

Given the potential reputational damage to Rindermann of accusations of racism, I think the removal of the text and addition of quality tags to the article to be a necessary and urgent measure, and I would appreciate if no further reversions would be made until this discussion can be resolved with some degree of consensus. I accept that my original edit may have removed too much, but when I saw that it had been reverted wholesale, I was sufficiently troubled to bring my concerns to this noticeboard.

I found the German language Wikipedia article to contain more information on Rindermann's life and career, and suggest that we perhaps look there to see if some of that material should be included. Some of his public statements do seem genuinely controversial. But I don't think being on the editorial board of contributing to MQ and Intelligence, in and of itself, is evidence of eugenic, racist, neo-Nazi, or pseudoscientific beliefs.

On the contrary, I believe that saying so would be potentially defamatory, and not just to Rindermann. Nangaf (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I see that this discussion was initiated by canvassing from a topic-banned LTA. See e.g. this for context. I have no doubt that Nangaf was unfamiliar with this context, but now you know. I'll be happy to provide more details if anyone wants them. There is no need to waste additional community time on this. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's true that I was unaware of this context, but I am not some shallow dupe, and I believe that the article can be improved. Nangaf (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Well his article does not say that he promotes eugenics or racism, it says he serves on the board of a journal which does. Zenomonoz (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Intelligence is a mainstream academic journal, so that statement is simply false. The claim that MQ promotes eugenics and racism is not an uncontested fact, so I would challenge the way that this is presented as a consensus view. In fact, I would claim that it is at least *plausible* that to accuse Rindermann of contributing to a racist journal is precisely the kind of anachronism that I mentioned previously. (Amazingly enough, academic journals can change their editorial policies over the course of 75 years.) Again, you don't have to admit that accusation is wrong: you just have to admit that it isn't an established fact.

For context, the current text of the article reads:

Rindermann serves on the editorial board of the journal Intelligence, and has been a contributor to Mankind Quarterly, which is commonly described as a white supremacist journal and purveyor of scientific racism. He has also helped to organize conferences for the International Society for Intelligence Research. Rindermann attended the 2018 London Conference on Intelligence, and was one of 15 attendees to collaborate on a letter defending the conference following media reports of its ties to white supremacy, neo-Nazism, and racist pseudoscience. The letter was published in Intelligence in 2018.

To my mind, that reads like a whole lot of innuendo -- "commonly described as" are weasel words, suggesting a consensus that may or not exist -- and endorses the media claims of racism. No sources are provided to show that Rindermann explicitly endorses racist views, so we should not be calling him a racist. And if we think he keeps racist company, we should identify those people by name so that readers can make up their own minds about them. (James Thompson seems like a candidate.) Nangaf (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I was talking about Mankind Quarterly, not Intelligence. He has contributed to MQ (not on the board). The article does not label Intelligence a racist journal, it labels MQ. I don't see the big issue here. Nobody is "calling him a racist", it says he has contributed to a racist journal. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with one issue at a time. I'm glad we agree that Intelligence is not racist! MQ may or may not have contained racist content at one time, I don't know much about it because anthropology is not my field. If it's anything like the psychological literature, then eugenic content was probably last published in the 1960s, and questions of whether or not the journal "is racist" relate to editorial decisions made by people long since dead. I guess the question I want to raise is whether MQ is "commonly described" as racist, or not, has any place in this biography. I suppose it might, if he made frequent, or particularly notable contributions: do we have evidence to support that? Nangaf (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not really up to us to evaluate this. Wikipedia just reflects what the WP:RS/reliable sources say. Sometimes individual editors think the truth of the matter is more nuanced than what the sources say, but that is kind of irrelevant at the end of the day. In the past I was guilty of trying to remove critique from the odd BLP figure, but I learned a few lessons over time, especially after I faced a temporary block for edit warring. Ultimately, if it's reported in an RS it can usually be included on Wikipedia. Zenomonoz (talk) 05:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

That's not true. We can evaluate whether comments are WP:DUE as well as whether they are well-attested. This is particularly important for WP:BLP -- there are limits on what we can write about living people. And in this case, it is impossible to justify. Rindermann has published exactly one article in MQ, as a middle author. This is not an especially salient fact in his biography. And the additional commentary on MQ, with multiple sources, just makes the article more imbalanced. It really looks like the only reason MQ is mentioned at all is to get in some mention of racism. It looks like a smear, and it's dishonest, because it creates the false impression that Rindermann's one paper in MQ is representative of his academic output. Nangaf (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I do understand that there is a counter-argument, that I am saying he "only f*cked one goat" with apologies to Paul Macartney i.e. that any publication in MQ is per se such an important fact that it colours his entire career. I reject that view. It is an unimportant publication. Nangaf (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I think Nangaf is correct. Of the six sources that the article gives for connecting Rindermann to Mankind Quarterly, the first includes only one sentence saying that Rindermann published in that journal. The second source mentions Rindermann and separately mentions Mankind Quarterly, in different parts of the paper, but does not discuss any relation between them. The other four sources do not mention Rindermann at all. The only one of the six sources that mentions Rindermann having published a paper there is the first source, and that source includes none of the additional details about it being a "white supremacist" journal. There is no individual source that relates Rindermann to white supremacism or neo-Nazism. Combining separate sources to create such a derogatory association about a living person is a case of original synthesis and a likely violation of BLP policy. Mr Butterbur (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that was my suspicion. Based on this, I am going to try to edit the article to remove the presumed synthesis pending further discussion. If it is immediately reverted, as I suspect it will be, then I will escalate the case to dispute resolution. Nangaf (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Once again, GeneralRelative reverted my edits without discussion so I have escalated the case to WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Heiner_Rindermann. Nangaf (talk) 05:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm staying out of the merits of the case, but it has already been removed from DRN and ANI, and I've made it clear at those venues that this is the proper venue to discuss the merits and to determine if the sources are making the claims that are in the included text. I would ask others jump in and determine this, as this is a real BLP issue, and the claims being made are very strong; strong enough that verification here is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks to me like the sources have been checked and confirmed a number of times, as discussed on the article talk page. I would direct you in particular to Elmidae's comment, in addition to those by Zenomonoz. My assessment is essentially the same as theirs. Obviously not everything that's verifiable belongs in article space, but verifiability doesn't seem to be at issue here. Generalrelative (talk) 03:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, now it is at BLPN, which is objective enough and I trust for oversight of the edits, since they are making a very strong claim. If the sources are 100% on point, then surely a few objective editor here will agree. Currently, two editors disagree with you, so it would seem to be reasonable to ask others to take a look and opine, and that is what I am asking of others now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 06:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The claims above for retaining this defamatory material which people agree is speculative appear to reduce to "as long as there's a reference for someone claiming this it should stay". That's not how living person articles are handled. I agree these claims being made are very strong and likely actionable in countries like the UK. As nothing supports the target of the article supporting any of these views, they should be removed. The link to a similar case above and the result (removal of derogatory and speculative claims) also influenced me.

Tim bates (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's not really the issue, Tim. The first question is: Do the sources support the claim? Next is: If they do, then is this WP:undue or does it add perspective missing without it. Being actionable in another country isn't really a consideration, and it isn't defamatory if it is verifiably factual. We aren't here to make people look bad, nor to whitewash their articles, nor to concern ourselves with the laws of all 195 countries on the planet. We often publish ugly facts, but only under the steps I've given. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Kind of a mixed bag here i think, with the WP content pretty close to the sources but awkwardly worded.

• There are good sources describing Mankind Quarterly, so much so that WP:ASSERT is probably more appropriate than "commonly described as". Should maybe update the citations to the best sources for this such as Saini and maybe put into an extended footnote instead of the ugly OVERCITE.
• There are news sources calling attention to his contributions to Mankind Quarterly, so should be fine. I'd think it would be better for the reader to say what he has published there, and i think with some pretty shady looking coauthors, but that might be considered OR.
• On the journal Intelligence, the run on sentence kind of implies we are equating the reputation of the two publications and criticizing Rindermann for being on the editorial board. I think the sources are doing the opposite, they are criticizing Intelligence for having Rindermann on the board.
• There is much news coverage of the UCL conference. The best source here is probably The Times. Most sources attribute the characterization as "secretive group of white supremacists with neo-Nazi links" to Ben van der Merwe's reporting in London Student. New Statesman published his follow-up article.
• I can't actually find a source calling attention to the Intelligence letter defending the conference. The Times has: David Becker and Heiner Rindermann, from the Chemnitz University of Technology in Germany, presented a paper on why some nations are “brighter than others”. Maybe better to follow that and just say he attended and and what he spoke on rather than leading from the letter.
• helped to organize conferences for ISIR is pretty weak sourcing in my opinion, and the construction doesn't really make it clear to the reader why it matters.
• Jackson & Winston could be better utilized.
• Surprised i'm not finding more reviews of Cognitive Capitalism, just Winston again so far.

I don't agree that the WP content is really making any "very strong claims". What i take from the passage is that he has published in a journal with a horrid reputation. This is well supported and should be called out in the content. He attended and signed on to a letter defending a conference, the conference was harshly criticized which was widely reported. To the extent the wording might imply more to the incautious reader the wording should be improved. But i think what the WP content actually says is well within the bounds set by the sources. fiveby(zero) 12:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with everything you write here, but "commonly described as" are weasel words, and should be eliminated whichever way the consensus here falls. Either assert as fact that MQ is a racist journal that publishes pseudoscience -- and justify why that is WP:DUE and appropriate in the BLP of someone who has published in that journal precisely once -- or don't mention it at all.

If there is consensus that Rindermann's single publication in MQ is worthy of mention, perhaps the bio needs a separate section for Controversies. It does not seem appropriate to mention this minor publication in a career summary unless we are asserting as fact that Rindermann is a career eugenicist and a racist, and that this one publication is typical or emblematic of that.

I also agree that the article should not conflate MQ with Intelligence. Being on the editorial board of Intelligence can be considered an academic achievement, a career milestone for a psychologist in this field.

I believe that the UCL conference, or rather conferences, were organized by James Thompson who has co-authored some publications with Rindermann. (I am not 100% sure which of the conferences Rindermann attended, but possibly all of them.) Thompson doesn't have his own Wikipedia page and is presumably not a notable academic in his own right. Rindermann's co-authors on the letter to Intelligence include people like Richard Lynn and Gerhard Meisenberg who have without doubt come under scrutiny regarding the Race and Intelligence controversy.

The fact that Rindermann has chosen to publish with people like this offers grounds for similar scrutiny, in my opinion, but I do think we should be scrupulous about selecting sources that specifically link Rindermann to the controversy. (Emphasis added to pick out separate suggestions.) Nangaf (talk) 02:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

One article in MQ? Sorry if you brought that up earlier in the discussion and i missed it. I took Two other board members are Heiner Rindermann and Jan te Nijenhuis, frequent contributors to Mankind Quarterly and the London Conference on Intelligence. from New Statesman and checked and found Pallesen has co-authored several papers with Woodley, Kirkegaard and others who have published in Mankind Quarterly or who appeared at LCI, including Heiner Rindermann and Noah Carl. from The Guardian, then was distracted by looking at coauthors in other publications. Shows i am not being a very careful reader here. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Removed the MQ content and tried to clarify what the conference citations are being used to support. Think the article needs to make better use of Winston and looking through de:Heiner Rindermann and another look for more reviews when i get a chance. fiveby(zero) 17:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the German language article is quite illuminating. Unfortunately it seems to be based entirely on primary sources. I suspect German language secondary sources do exist, but I haven't been able to find any yet. Nangaf (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake.

Hi. Here, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2026_United_States_Senate_elections&diff=next&oldid=1210860279&diffonly=1, I made a mistake. I reverted though. I thought I could self report myself. I just think I should own up to my mistake. Thanks. I was taught that in real life. Cwater1 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

The edit looked alright to me, but a slightly different wording has been added to the article now so the point is moot. For something like this, "self reporting" at BLPN isn't usually necessary. If you think you might have violated BLP, self-reverting with an edit summary saying that you made a mistake (exactly the steps you took) is generally fine. Everything you did looks like it was in good faith and I don't see any blatant BLP violations, so it doesn't look like there's anything more to do here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I thought the article said Mitch McConnel wasn't running for reelection for the 2026 Kentucky elections. I realized it was about him step down as Senate GOP leader after the 2024 elections. No worries, I rather be safe than sorry. I am here to build an encyclopedia. Cwater1 (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

He's also not running for reelection in 2026, so you were right on both counts. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I applaud your candor and demonstration of character, User:Cwater1. I too try to use actual real-life standards when editing here, but apparently a lot of people don't. Herostratus (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

We are all human here if not most. Cwater1 (talk) 22:51, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Settlement

propose a meeting 2603:6011:2F0:3460:716C:699B:5803:7A17 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Neo Paganism in the Republic of Ireland

I wish to insist that I have never been found guilty of four charges in an irish court, as alleged by an anonymous contributor against me and publsihed by you in your article. I was never the founder of any political party as also alleged where you allow this anonymous contributor to make remarks against my good name and character that I could constitute a threat to society/the State. 

And not only am I actively libelled by anonymous means by you but it is malicious to boot. Therefore you leave me no option. I already have two cases for similar libel in the High Court.

I suspect that your anonymous contributor libelling me is a˜old enemy of mine called Con Connor of Druidschool, who is abusing Wikipedia as well as me!

Signed,

Michael McGrath, Kilkenny city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.17.139 (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The article did not in fact say that you had been found guilty of four charges in any court, but there were plenty of other issues with the text discussing you so I have removed it anyway Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:20, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

IP blocked, I see. This seems to be about [22], removed by @Caeciliusinhorto. To the ES I would add "Needs WP:BLP-good sources." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Anat Schwartz

I am concerned about the use of sources such as MondoWeiss[23] and CounterPunch[24] in this BLP. I am not completely convinced it meets our notability threshold. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Your concerns about sourcing and notability are well-taken and I have nominated it for deletion. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Dallon Weekes

Dallon Weekes#Personal life There is little to any evidence that Dallon Weekes is a still a memeber of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later Day Saints, his recent interviews, instagram posts, and music production are heavily in contrast with this assertion. The cited tweet is from over 5 years ago and would not be credible as a source determining his current membership. It would be significantly more appropriate to refer to him being raised in an LDS household. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonshine Yarrow (talk • contribs) 22:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's questionable if a tweet should be used for that at all per WP:PROPORTION, but I edited that factoid per MOS:DATED. Also made some other edits, it's not a good article from the WP:BLP-perspective. If you have a WP:BLP-good source that says he was raised in an LDS household, you can add that to article, with citation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I found an interview from 2021 [25] where he still say's he's a Mormon. While he didn't specifically say he was a member of the Church of the LDS, considering the question it seems almost definite that is what he meant.

I don't know the quality of 519 Magazine and interviews aren't my favourite type of source still if someone is still saying that in 2021 when they were ~40 years old, saying they are a member of the church is way more accurate than saying they were raised in a LDS household. And of course things could have changed since 2021, but that's pretty much a problem for everything in our article.

(I've remarked before a common problem is when someone is married or whatever and then isn't happy when we still say they are married although they have since divorced.)

Using dated is a solution for stuff like married, their religon etc, but it's not something we can use for everything. For example, I could probably find fairly recent primary or non RS confirming Weekes is still the frontman of I Dont Know How But They Found Me; and depending on how well know either are, recentish reliable secondary sources confirming this. But at any time this could become untrue however I don't think we really want to use a dated format for something like that.

(Or at least it's complicated. I mean I think we can all agree it's unnecessary to use it for something like Joe Biden is the president of the United States since realistically within 30 minutes of that changing there will be probably several orders of magnitude more sources reporting that than have ever covered anything about Weekes.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

BTW, AFAIK religion is something many sources just accept without requiring verification even when the religion has formal membership requirements. Likewise even if the religion has a way of removing membership, I don't think this is something always reported on especially for low profile individuals. However, even for fairly strict religions like the LDS, there are way more people who are still members and consider themselves as such despite disagreeing with one or more fundamental tenets of that religion; than there are people who have been removed. (While the LDS also has disfellowship, that doesn't actually end membership.) In other words, it's very common someone can be a member of some religion even if many of their public statements etc seem at odds with that religion's positions. So unless someone is explicitly saying they're not a member of a religion, it's often fairly useless to try and decide from other stuff they've said. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Sion Sono

Can someone take a look at Sion Sono (history)? A user has repeatedly removed content on the grounds that a settlement was reached following a defamation suit. Nardog (talk) 12:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

At a minimum, it seems to me that the anything sourced only to those articles which were deleted needs to be removed. Even if an archive could be found, in a case like this where there's good reason to think the deletion was because the author or publisher has for some reason decided they cannot stand by the content, we can no longer consider them RS. I'd say the same for anything from another RS but which originates from the deleted sources unless the publisher has given some indication they still stand by the content despite the removal of the original source. Anything which did not originate from the deleted content even if it arose in response to the deleted content would seem to be something we could keep. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Crimes of family members

I just removed a bunch of crimes of apparently non notable family members from Bilal Skaf [26]. While these were sourced, I don't see that they belong in the article, I mean we don't generally even include names. While some of these seem related to the subject's imprisonment and may have limited their ability to stay in contact while in prison, this doesn't seem sufficient to justify including them to me. (One seemed more or less completely unrelated and so I see no justification for including it in that specific article.) I left in one single one, of a brother's who's crime seems to be part of a related or possibly even joint offence. Appreciate any thoughts on this, especially whether to keep the brother. Nil Einne (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

We also have Sydney gang rapes which covers the brother, so added reason why it might be fine to include in the article. Note that for clarity, the info is in a section called family, it's not in a section about the subject's crime or his court case etc. Nil Einne (talk) 10:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless the crimes of the non-notable family members are directly related to some aspect of the notable BLP (for example, perhaps the BLP was charged for murder, while a non-notable brother charged for accessory to that), there's no need to bring those up. Again, BLP urges us to omit rather than include if there's any question on such matters. Masem (t) 13:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case I'm unsure why Lauren Boebert's non-notable son is mentioned in her article. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should be, so I have removed it Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Brad Pitt potentially committed self-evident ________

pitt dated lewis in the 90s when he was 27 and she was 17. do we have consensus to label this as self-evident ephebophilia or will we get flagged for libel. i had a discussion here about it for context (do not comment on that issue thread, comment here) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Schazjmd#hey_whyd_you_remove_my_pitt_edits? NotQualified (talk) 14:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You source is? Bon courage (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

go to the brad pitt page and check history, youll see sources and what i wrote there NotQualified (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

None of those sources mention "ephebophilia". Schazjmd (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

it's self evident, 17 and 27. NotQualified (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Without a reliable secondary source explicitly discussing his relationship in those terms your proposal becomes WP:OR, which is not permitted. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

go to the brad pitt page and check history, youll see sources and what i wrote there

>his relationship in those terms

elaborate? are you suggesting their partnership was solely platonic or may have been? NotQualified (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No, you need very good sources discuss that in those terms. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

but the action in itself is ephebophilic? all i have to source is he was 27 AND she was 17 AND they romantically dated. no other evidence is required to prove ephebophilia as thats what it is. can i call russells teapot and ask how that isnt ephebophilic? are you suggesting pitt and lewis were only platonic, i would argue thats outrageous and obviously false. what bar of evidence is actually required here because i feel like i could just source the dictionary and prove my point:

(ɪˌfiːbəˈfɪlɪə )

noun

the condition of being sexually attracted to adolescents

https://www.collinsdic?tionary.com/dictionary/english/ephebophilia

all conditions of this definition are met NotQualified (talk) 15:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You have no evidence of any condition, a condition of attraction is life long. Nor can anyone here accept you as any kind of expert on this? NotQualified. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

so what? he dated a minor for a couple of years and then suddenly got over his attraction of minors? thats the argument? would that hold up in a court room, that doesnt even sound plausible. pitt to this day still says he loves her so id argue the lifelong condition is met https://meaww.com/brad-pitts-greatest-love-a-look-back-at-actors-relationship-with-kalifornia-co-star-juliette-lewis NotQualified (talk) 15:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

You just absolutely destroyed any credibility, if he still is attracted to her that means he is not attracted to a 17 year old. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

hold on, do you think ephebophile means EXCLUSIVELY attracted to 15-19 or INCLUSIVLEY attracted? you seem to think the former and i think the latter. do we have any means of contacting a specialist on this NotQualified (talk) 16:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No, and it would not matter anyway, what matters is many qualified written sources that use precisely the words you imagine apply, See WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

> what matters is many qualified written sources that use precisely the words you imagine apply,

so i have to find an article that outright declares someone his age dating someone her age is ephebophilic? NotQualified (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

possibly but not just one, many, see WP:DUE, and they all have of high quality, likely medical, See, WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks alan NotQualified (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

oops, I misread your question, the answer is NO, you need high quality sources that discuss this precise relationship of this person in those terms, again likely medical. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

All conditions of that definition are met by your average 15 year old, if you want to put it that way. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thats true. i guess im one lol NotQualified (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

WP editors should never introduce language like "self-evident", as that implies OR is being used to make that claim. — Masem (t) 15:30, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No- to add a medical condition to the article would require a medical diagnosis and high quality reliable sources discussing this diagnosis - otherwise this should not be in the article or discussed on the talkpage at all. Just let it go.Nigel Ish (talk) 16:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would add that the diagnosis should be the result of an examination, not an armchair diagnosis. Goldwater rule O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i was more just going off of the relationship being self-evident in the same way a baby and a adult is pedophilic even without a diagnosis NotQualified (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thats like arguing a 20 year old man dating a 2 year old baby isnt pedophilic by nature. how is 17 and 27 not ephebophilic? NotQualified (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No, a two year old is a crime. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

so is 17 and 27 in most regions??? NotQualified (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent apparently most regions set it to 16 however it is still illegal in some regions. age of consent laws seem to be very complex however and take both parties age into account, so that needs to be factored in as well NotQualified (talk) 16:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

No editor or administrator is going to let you anywhere near suggesting a crime, see WP:BLP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

thanks for the heads up NotQualified (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Although even then, we'd still need a source to actually label it as such, or anything else. The point is it's not up to use argue something is "self-evident". Something may very well be self-evident to us as editors, like the criminal and disgusting nature of a 27 year old being with a 2 year old, but we should be relying on what sources say not what is self-evident. If something is really so self-evident then it should be trivial to find sources that talk about it, as would be the case for pretty much any such example. If there really are no sources commenting on something, then so be it, we have to wait. A famous example of this might be Gabriel Matzneff. Despite the abhorrent stuff he wrote about in his book/s, until sources actually commented on it (which I think might have happened in 1990 if not before but I'm not sure if was the moment his books were published), it was not something we could talk about. even if we had an article. Nil Einne (talk)

WP:V Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Only thing I see that appears self-evident is that user NotQualified is not qualified to edit BLPs. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

well i did come here to ask for general consensus, that is due diligence NotQualified (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't think you will ever get that consensus here regarding this. You are essentially asking editors to agree to label someone as a highly contentious label, with no reliable sources labeling them as such, for dating a teenager 30+ years ago.

Awshort (talk) 08:09, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

thats why i didnt add it NotQualified (talk) 08:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Stephen Douglas Gore

• Draft:Stephen Douglas Gore

This is an article about a "convicted fraudster" who doesn't appear to have been convicted of fraud. He pleaded to "illegal control of an enterprise". Google wasn't much help, but that doesn't seem to equate to fraud. Outside of the incidents that resulted in charges, I'm not sure this person is notable. Additionally, the article claims that Stephen Douglas Gore "was convicted of fraud after forging documents of consent". I believe I have checked all of the sources and not found that allegation, although I may have missed it.

This was in mainspace until I moved it back to draft. It was already marked as having close paraphrasing that needed fixing and included typos like "differed jail time" and "BRC was forced to pay $58 million after a civil jury awarded some of the families of the deceased". This should probably never have been moved out of draft space. Perhaps an article could be written about the Biological Resources Company events instead of one person. And maybe leaving out the refrigerator full of penises. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

can anyone see this draft? NotQualified (talk) 18:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it is indexed by Google. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

good to know, i guess you felt the need to audit my stuff. stephen definitely deserves an article and i support a separate BRC one as well. if more experienced WP editors will help with that id be grateful NotQualified (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i found this blog post but i cant cite it due to WP guidelines as it's a BLP right? https://www.bryanfagan.com/blog/2024/february/the-dark-saga-of-the-biological-resource-center-scandal/ NotQualified (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i guess you felt the need to audit my stuff I did not follow you here. This page is on my watchlist and I answered a question. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

sorry, thought you were user counterfeitpurses NotQualified (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@Objective3000 and NotQualified: I'm pretty sure drafts will not normally be indexed by Google or most major search engines, since they always have the WP:NOINDEX parameter. While anyone including Google is free to ignore this, I don't think the generally do for Wikipedia, and especially not for drafts. I had a quick look and cannot find any drafts on en.wikipedia indexed by Google.

In this case, the original Stephen Douglas Gore article does still appear on Google, but there's no sign of the draft and I doubt there ever will. Unfortunately we have no way to control when Google will stop indexing the old article, but they're generally not too bad on wikipedia so I expect it'll probably be gone within a few days or a few weeks at most. (I'm not sure how Google handles redirects, possibly if the cross-namespace redirect had not been deleted the draft in the form of the redirect would have still appeared.)

The same applies to BLP article talk pages provided they have the appropriate template (although this means archives can be a problem) and also user space and user talk pages (although these can be overridden in some cases). Likewise articles newer than 90 dsays will not normally be indexed straight away until the are patrolled. (I'm fairly sure the last still works, since we sometimes get complaints from someone that the article isn't being indexed.)

The article was published on mainspace over 7 months ago [27] so wasn't new at the time it was moved back to draft space, so this didn't apply anymore. Also if I'm reading the logs correctly, it was marked as reviewed 5 months ago too.

Several noticeboards including this one, deletion discussions and some others are handled a bit different since they rely on the robots.txt although the result is sort of similar except that Google might display they exist just with no substantive content. That said, sites are known to randomly mirror wikipedia content. Any content mirrored elsewhere might be on Google via this mirror.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. I checked before making that edit and it was indexed and linked to the draft. It now points to a page linking to the draft. I looked at robots.txt and saw nothing about drafts. But the draft itself is noindex, nofollow. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

do you know where i can ask for help writing the article? NotQualified (talk) 13:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

the documents of consent thing came from reuters i believe. it should be easy to find online? NotQualified (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

while grim, the penises are a part of the story and i see no reason to make euphemisms about it. we have articles about serial killers here for comparison. stephens actions ended with a 58 million dollar penalty as he was heading BRC and his tale is extremely disturbing. i think we should keep the stephen article and add a separate BRC article. this just needs more attention from Wikipedians NotQualified (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@NotQualified It's an encyclopedia article and it won't include every detail of the story, just the important ones. So it might say something about body parts in general, but it probably wouldn't include a fridge full of penises. You could start your blog about fridges and/or penises if that's important to you. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

feel free to edit yourself NotQualified (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

can i show a defunct company's logo on wikipedia, we cant get sued as the company no longer exists so it's public domain right? https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/assets/usa-bodies-business/brc.jpg?v=033920261217 NotQualified (talk) 19:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Copyright can survive the death of a company. But I don't think their logo crosses the threshold of originality required for copyright protection, O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

can you add it to the article please NotQualified (talk) 19:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I would rather that the article is about the company rather than the BLP subject. I really don't think NotQualified should be editing anything about living people honestly given their previous Brad Pitt comments. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i did due diligence by coming here to gather consensus and didn't re-add it. thats deeply unfair. NotQualified (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

i went to the initial re-editor, asked what i did wrong, then asked around for community opinions and help. i am trying my best here, i am not trying to break the rules and i am sorry for doing so but i wasnt trying to and i'm not trying to do things wrong. i am learning. i tried my best to make an article for wikipedia and it wasnt good enough so it got moved to draft space and i think thats enough consequence NotQualified (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh has moved this mess back into article space. I give up. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

someone just rwmoved it as an 'attack article'? i do not know why or how they got that impression NotQualified (talk) 08:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was me. The article was entirely negative in tone, poorly sourced, and contained unsubstantiated claims that he was convicted of fraud ("illegal control of an enterprise" is different from fraud", called him a Fraudster in the lede sentence, contained unsourced claims that he forged documents, and went out of its way to portray the incident in the most gruesome and salacious way possible while generally going beyond what the sources said. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

well i mean, it's hard to make this article positive or even neutral sounding in tone, his actions arent easy to sugarcoat. i tried being impartial regardless but it's just by nature a grim read. the fraud tag was added i believe by someone else initially. he did forge documents however, that's in the reuters doc. he used those to sell cadavers + sell diseased bodies to universities. about the gruesome wording, thats the wording found in the sources. maybe the sources i provided were sensationalising but honestly? i dont think they were. this was a man that literally strewn one humans head to another's body, had a bucket of penises, etc.. theres honestly no way to make this sound good without lying through omision. it's not appropriate to downplay acts of depravity, they are what they are and thats a sad truth. it's not attack article, it never calls for violence and, the inaccuracies can be edited. if you want to add a trigger warning and correct the mistakes that'd be appreciated. NotQualified (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's very possible to make any article about any subject sound neutral. It's not about positive or negative but about keeping an objective and dispassionate tone. (Yes, all writing has a tone, and because the reader can't hear the actual tone of your voice they have a very heightened response to written tones.) For example, (at the risk of invoking Godwin's law) see the article on Adolph Hitler. Despite all the horrible things he did, the article is very neutral and objective, and very well written. By comparison, check out the article on Mother Teresa. Neutral does not mean balancing the positive with the negative so we have equal portions of each. That would be creating a false balance, and nobody would expect that in either of these two examples. One is naturally going to be more positive than the other. Keeping neutral means means being objective and dispassionate in your writing, and specifically writing in the third-person objective.

WP:Balance, on the other hand, means we apportion information in an article, good or bad, in the same proportions found in reliable sources. In other words, we take all the sources that exist about a subject (not just the ones in the article, but all of them), weigh them as if on a scale, and weigh all that against any particular piece of information to determine how much space in the article it deserves. Does it warrant an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence? Or maybe it doesn't deserve any space at all. This part is more basic math in figuring out percentages, and largely depends on the size of the article.

Now, I haven't read the draft, because I've been out of town for a while, but just by reading your statement above I can see that you are not being at all neutral or objective in your description of it, and that's a major problem. You're very unobjective and passionate in your tone.

I'm not trying to pick on you or hurt your feelings here. Writing is hard work and not easy to do, and to be a writer you have to accept criticism because that's how we learn. I spent many years of schooling and reading books on the subject, and practicing and listening to criticism, to get to where I am today. No one can expect to pick it up overnight. Some people never pick it up.

At the same time, BLP policy is far too important to let things like that slide even for a moment, and BLP policy applies to draft space, talk pages, and noticeboards like this one just as much as to article space, so I think Wordsmith was right to delete the article outright, per WP:Blow it up and start over. Biographies are not a place to practice those skills. You'd do much better to pick some other types of articles to learn on that don't involve living people. Preferably something you don't have such strong feelings about, because that will help you learn to be objective and dispassionate in your delivery; to learn about the proper use of sources and how to avoid synthesis; how to weigh and balance sources correctly; etc. It takes time, patience, and work. I sincerely hope that helps, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

when i get the time i'll respond in more depth. thanks for the reply, if yiuve the chance can yiu read it NotQualified (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure, provided I'm around at that time. I spend very little time online, but if I can offer up anymore advice I will. First you might want to work on spelling and grammar, because that vastly affects how people read and understand your writing, and how much confidence they will have in you. Starting off with bios is like trying out for the NFL without ever playing in college or the little leagues. Bios are the big leagues, so it's not a great place to begin. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrei Cherny

Andrei Cherny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

We turn to you for help. We posted this request on the Talk page three weeks ago with no response. Andrei Cherny is in an active campaign for Congress and editor BBQboffin continues to insert and delete information and delete edits that are attempts to bring this article in line with the BLP policy.

1) The first paragraph states "The company is under investigation for allegedly inflating the impact of its carbon offsets." Nowhere in the sources is there any such allegation stated. Nor has there been any such allegation made.

2) Furthermore, this sentence does not belong in the opening paragraph of Cherny's bio because it violates the Balance section of the BLP policy. Cherny has served as a White House aide, Navy Officer, Arizona's Assistant Attorney General, author of two books, wrote Barack Obama's 2008 campaign policy plan Change We Can Believe In, drafted the 2000 Democratic Party Platform, etc. None of those are in the opening paragraph. Defer to you on whether they should be. But why an investigation of a company he left two years ago in the opening paragraph? Whenever this change is made, editor BBQBoffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) puts it back.

3) Cherny did not leave when the SPAC deal fell through. The merger was called off in August 2023 and he left in October 2022 https://news.spacconference.com/2023/08/23/interprivate-iii-financial-partners-calls-off-aspiration-deal/. Articles at the time said it was "amid a delay" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-10-13/aspiration-ceo-cherny-stepping-down-as-spac-merger-faces-a-delay but there has never been any statement tying his departure to anything involving the SPAC deal other than that he left at the same time as the delay

4) It is categorically false that Aspiration promised "to help them offset their greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees." There is no source for that statement.

5) The history shows that edits were made to the article by Cliffh123 at 00:35, 13 February 2024 that more correctly explained the company's carbon credit business and provided an example of a deal with Meta/Facebook. This shows the company did not just "aim" to sell carbon credits. Those edits were taken down by editor, BBQboffin.

6) The information added on the investigation of Aspiration does not include the fact that this is "part of a larger effort to scrutinize the industry" https://kjzz.org/content/1868800/report-financial-regulators-probe-arizona-congressional-candidates-former-company. This omission makes it misleading — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHERNYFACTS (talk • contribs) 10:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

CHERNYFACTS, I recommend that you use formal Edit request templates at Talk: Andrei Cherny to draw attention from uninvolved editors. If you are a campaign staffer, then please comply with the Paid contributions disclosure. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Cullen328 I took a look at the Andrei Cherny article and I'm somewhat sympathetic to this CHERNYFACTS editor's complaints. They haven't edited the article themselves, sticking to the talk page, and while their laundry list above is a lot, there is one thing that jumps out at me: there's a relatively large amount of information about the company Aspiration, Inc., which was all added by one editor, and it strikes me as a bit of a WP:COATRACK situation. The company is being investigated, and the sourcing has been used in a very pointy manner to paint Cherny in a fairly negative-POV way. I'm not sure that amount of coverage, and the manner in which it is presented, is necessarily WP:DUE on a BLP, but I would like to get some other editors' opinions on it. I'm uninvolved in either side of this debate, but obviously, CHERNYFACTS has disclosed they have a COI. On the other hand, the editor who added the passages in question does seem to have a strong opinion as well. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

On the other other hand, Fred Zepelin had a content dispute with BBQboffin at Blake Masters, wherein the former accused the latter of being a "white supremacist apologist". Fred Zepelin then followed BBQboffin to Andrei Cherny, first editing the page on February 25, right in the middle of the dispute at the Blake Masters page. Now Fred Zepelin is arguing the case of a disclosed paid campaign staffer. That's...not the move. I agree with Cullen's request to use edit request to draw in uninvolved editors. Marquardtika (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that you omitted the result of the Blake Masters discussion, in which other uninvolved editors agreed that BBQboffin was pushing POV. Of course, that has zero to do with this discussion, so please try to stay on-topic. I'm asking for the opinion of others on the WP:COATRACK issue, and that's all I'm doing. I'll thank you to WP:AGF and apologize for casting aspersions upon my intent in this discussion. Fred Zepelin (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That I "was pushing POV" was not the result of the Blake Masters discussion.[28]. The only thing the editors involved agreed on, Fred, was that your personal attacks against me should stop.[29].

For the Cherny page I added some content based on the laundry list CHERNYFACTS had posted on the article talk page[30] such as his publications and detail from the "company minimum wage" Fortune editorial he authored, but it was tough sledding as Fred reverted that last one here[31] and templated me[32].

I had also had a talk page discussion with @Cliffh123 (whose edit history I see now is exclusively about Cherny) about the article improvements, while he complained about the “election attack” of a “rival campaign” and had a similar laundry list.[33] I thought it was appropriately NPOV for me to revert his repeated attempts to delete an RS, but also to include Cherny's quoted response to the probe.[34]

Regarding COATRACK, I see Cherney’s notability deriving dually from his CEO business career (10 lines), and his political career (16 lines). As the business material is well-sourced (Bloomberg, Fortune, WSJ, etc.) and some of the political is currently sourced by a school newspaper and a campaign ad, I think we should expand the business part and better source the political part. BBQboffin^{grill me} 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Lord Darzi - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ara_Darzi,_Baron_Darzi_of_Denham

The current summary of Lord Darzi's resignation from the Labour party is biased and potentially denies proven antisemitism. Labour's own Deputy Chair of the Labour party Tom Watson took a similar view, and the Equality and Human Rights Commission found Labour to have been responsible for "unlawful" acts of harassment and discrimination during Jeremy Corbyn's four-and a-half years as party leader. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-62226042 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.219.131.128 (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What point are you making regarding BLP policies? AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Subject requests deletion, raises credible points

A subject of a BLP has requested deletion and immediate removal of exact birthdate and middle names from his article. His comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Parkin raise some really important points regarding privacy, "automatic notability" and reliance on primary/niche sources for BLPs. I would think it worth experienced editors checking out the AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute over birth year at Playboi Carti article

There have been conflicting dates of birth given by the subject in interviews over the years, with some pointing to a 1995 date of birth (using age as of date) and others pointing to a 1996 date of birth. Going by WP:DOB, if there is a conflict with age between multiple reliable sources, we cannot use one or the other and must point out the issue. Looking back over the old sources as I am writing this post, I do realize that no source specifically points to a September 13, 1995 birthday, just the year being disputed. (The sources that specifically points to a September 13, 1995 birthday are a bodycam video that was obtained a while back with the article subject stating their DOB as such. But since it is a primary source, it cannot be used).

I attempted to address this by providing references on the talk page, as well as in an edit note left here, but the article was reverted back to its original form by the same user who has did the majority of reverts over the birth date, according to the edit history.

The page is under page protection due to multiple editors trying to add one date or the other, so I was trying to point out the discrepancy with source and provide a note to meet in the middle. I would appreciate additional eyes, if possible.

Awshort (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Emily Willis

An article about porn performer Emily Willis was deleted in December 2022 after a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Willis. It was recreated about a year later, apparently translated from Russian Wikipedia. On February 5th, TMZ reported that Willis had been "hospitalized after an apparent OD". Editors kept adding the TMZ report to the article, possibly unaware of what WP:TMZ states: "When TMZ is the only source for a piece of information, consider also whether the information constitutes due or undue weight, especially when the subject is a living person". The article ended up being fully protected.

BD2412 was able to add the TMZ report because they are an admin. When I challenged the addition on their talk page they opened a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. That discussion may be drawing to a close as a new source has been found that is not just referencing the TMZ report. What that discussion has not addressed is whether or not this belongs in the biography of a living person.

Assuming that reliable sources exist, should the reported overdose be included in Willis' article? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The above account is not accurate. As the edit history plainly shows, when I added the reported content, I used two sources, one of which was Complex, which has no such admonition. At no time did I use TMZ as "the only source for a piece of information".

With respect to the content itself, it has now been reported that the article subject has remained in a coma for over a month following her initial admission to the hospital. This is no fleeting event. BD2412 T 04:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Sources seem to be giving more coverage to that than any other aspects of her life or career, so I don't see any reason to exclude it. I also haven't seen you make any argument as to why it should be excluded. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Willis had very little coverage in reliable sources to begin with. At this point, I am aware of exactly one reliable source (Toronto Sun) and one porn industry source (AVN) mentionng the overdose. The other sources are just reporting that TMZ said Willis overdosed. (But that's all been said in the reliable sources discussion). Given that, it's an issue of weight. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's more and better sourcing than what's available for pretty much any other aspect of the BLP subject's coverage. If sources are giving more space to this incident, there's your due weight. We weigh things based on the available coverage in sources. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The big question should be whether Emily Willis should even have an article if she's minimally covered in RS, suggesting that she does not pass WP:BIO. Her having an article only invites people slapping any news items reported by shit sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Incidentally, BD2414 has just informed me that they are "Suspicious of your motives with respect to the suppression of information in this article". I have no personal or professional connection to Emily Willis. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Utterly irrelevant to this discussion. BD2412 T 04:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

should the reported overdose be included in Willis' article? I suggest starting an RfC on the article's talk page. Some1 (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

@Some1: I would note that I had previously initiated a still-ongoing discussion on this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Emily Willis overdose sources, since the objection originally appeared to be over the sources rather than the content. BD2412 T 04:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Coverage stemmed from TMZ, which is a marginally reliable source. It grew into being reported (albeit churning) both by tabloids as well reliable sources, such as Complex. It eventually became independently reported by AVN (a g reliable porn-industry source) and Toronto Sun (which is a tabloid, but is designated a reliable source by quite a few editors for news reporting and is also operated directly alongside a few newspaper of records in Canada's provinces). It seems like BD2412 is being antagonized here, honestly, by an editor who (in my opinion) a slight lack of competence based on their talk page / past edits, even saying Please consider resigning your admin rights. to BD at the RSN. The sourcing is now quite strong, the strongest I'd expect for a pornography actor to receive for such an event. So, this is a question of WP:DUE, I think the overdose and hospitalization is worthy of inclusion. It is clearly not a minority view, it is a fact and one that is widely reported. TLA^tlak 05:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should speculate on the overdose: one TMZ source says she overdosed, the more recent one says that the preliminary toxicology report came back negative and basically concludes that it's unclear what the cause is. As far as I can tell the only other outlets to have run the overdose story explicitly attribute it to TMZ. I've made a suggestion in the RSN thread of a couple of sentences which I think we can include, but I really think it's better to just avoid the overdose angle at all at this point. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree with your suggestion. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

TMZ is tabloid trash, Toronto Sun is also tabloid trash compared to the much more legitimate Toronto Star, and those other listed sites like indy100 are clickbait sites. Any overdose speculation is WP:BLPGOSSIP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

1977 anti-Tamil pogrom

Editor Oz346 has stated serious allegations against author C. A. Chandraprema in the article 1977 anti-Tamil pogrom. These have been mentioned in here and here, could these be a possible WP:BLPCRIME violation. Cossde (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There are credible reports that Chandraprema has been involved in war crimes: https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/proposed-sri-lankan-envoy-to-geneva-c-a-chandraprema-was-a-member-of-prra-death-squad/

He cannot be used as a RS in Sri Lankan ethnic conflict related pages as you are attempting to do without further verification. Oz346 (talk) 05:34, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The article you cited states "Chandraprema was arrested in Sri Lanka in 2000 in connection with the 1989 assasinations of two human rights lawyers – Charita Lankapura and Kanchana Abhayapala. A senior ex policeman in custody had named Chandraprema as the alleged assassin in an affidavit which is publicly available online. However Chandraprema was released after the Attorney General decided there was no legal grounds to proceed." Furthermore, Chandraprema appointment to the UN had been accepted by the UN [35]. This falls under WP:BLPCRIME and a violation of WP:Biographies of living persons. Cossde (talk) 14:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There are more credible sources which indicate the same:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/03/sri-lankas-un-efforts-stave-justice-war-crimes Oz346 (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If this person was a government official, as suggested here, then he's automatically a public figure, so BLPCRIME wouldn't apply. Even so, we can't go around saying affirmatively that he is criminal unless he was convicted, even in edit summaries or talk pages. This is why RSs are always careful to use words like "alleged" when talking about such things, and we need to be just as careful too. That said, I have no idea what this dispute is about because the person you speak of is not mentioned anywhere in the article except the references. If the dispute is whether or not he can be considered a reliable source, you may want to try WP:RSN instead. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy

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.

---

Similar content has been removed from other articles, including based on BLP policy objections:

• Aliza Landes (Permalink). There is related discussion, including about BLP issues, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aliza Landes.
• UNRWA October 7 controversy (Permalink). Related discussion about BLP issues includes Talk:UNRWA_October_7_controversy#Merge_proposal:_Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy

Similar content was also added to Wall Street Journal UNRWA article controversy, and removed based on BLP policy objections e.g. [36] and [37]. After the Merge proposal discussion noted above began, similar content was restored and has since been expanded. There is a discussion with a request to remove the disputed content per WP:BLPUNDEL at Talk:Wall_Street_Journal_UNRWA_article_controversy#WP:BLPUNDEL.

The question for this noticeboard is should the disputed content be removed per WP:BLPUNDEL and consensus be obtained before the disputed content is restored in any article. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

As an update, the disputed content has been removed. Beccaynr (talk) 02:09, 9 March 2024 (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.

Odetari birth date, single dates, and years active dispute

There has been some edit warring between me and another user, Bigeditingideas, over a few things over at the article for Odetari, namely his birth date, the year he began making music, and the release dates of some of his singles.

The source for the birth date (January 1, 2000) is a tweet from an account named hooliganchristi wishing Odetari a happy birthday on January 1, 2023, to which he replied, "Luv u bro happy new year". This appears to be the only source for the birth date, and even as a self-published source, it seems weak. Nowhere in the exchange does he confirm that it is his birthday, and with this being the only source for it, it seems smarter to err on the side of caution.

The source for him having started in 2016 and not 2018 is a SoundCloud account with the name "Odetari BEATS", which started posting songs in 2016. Thus far, that account has not been mentioned by any reliable sources, so it falls under original research. The Billboard article currently being used as a source for this provides the earliest year for when he began making music, other than its stating that he started producing trap beats ten years prior to its writing.

Lastly, Bigeditingideas has changed the release dates of some singles in the body text, specifically for Odetari's songs "I <3 Latinas" and "Good Loyal Thots", repeatedly removing "I <3 Latinas" from the body text as his debut single and replacing it with "Good Loyal Thots". This one is slightly tricky, since Apple Music does list "Good Loyal Thots" as his first single from March 2023 and "I <3 Latinas" later, whereas the aforementioned Billboard article states that "I <3 Latinas" came out in March and was his first song, while "Good Loyal Thots" was released in April. It seems wise to stick to what the RS in this case is saying as opposed to a DSP, though. benǝʇᴉɯ 10:42, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The WP:DOB is easy, clearly not good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2024 (UTC)