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.

Balloon Boy Hoax

Balloon boy hoax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Balloon boy hoax article contains information sourced from media articles and blogs that is proven to be incorrect by video evidence linked in the talk page. The page falsely claims that the Heenes engineered a hoax. It is blatant libel. The interrogation of the Heenes (including the illegal interrogations of the children) are captured on video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallax (talk • contribs) 20:17, November 20, 2020 (UTC) Sinebot missed one Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Youtube is not a reliable source, so we cannot use it. If you can find this info in a reliable source, please bring it to the article's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

It's a primary source interview being on YouTube doesn't matter they host content not the publisher. It can be used for editorial judgements like what to include, how to phrase things. Policy is to use WP:COMMONSENSE. If some sources say it was an engineered hoax, but the person in question is on video saying it was not a hoax, that is a contradiction that can't be ignored. BLP applies. Suggest the sources that say it was hoax be of a higher standard and use qualifying words like "alleged" and "reportedly" to indicate there is some degree of controversy/contradiction. -- GreenC 02:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know the specifics of this, and don't really care to. To be honest, I've never heard of this. I saw the title and confused it with Bubble Boy (film). (That movie cracked me up. "He's got munities!" ... Well, I guess you would've had to have been there.) The problem with videos on youtube is that they are far too easy to fake or manipulate. It's called movie magic, and it's so easy to pull off these days, but even back in the days of Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie it wasn't that difficult. I much prefer a video that has been vetted by RSs. Zaereth (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait, we have very reliable sources reporting that the parents pled guilty to felony and misdemeanor charges that it was a hoax and we're supposed to remove that based on the word of some guy calling himself the "Internet Historian" on YouTube? We already included their after-the-fact claims that, pleas notwithstanding, it wasn't a hoax but Occam's razor applies. The label of "hoax" is well-supported by verifiable RS and therefore complies with BLP. Kallax, please read WP:LEGAL; claims that an article is libel or defamation can be taken to mean that legal action is intended and can result in blocks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Dec. 23, 2009: Richard Heene and Mayumi Heene, the parents behind the balloon boy hoax, will soon float away to jail. Today, Larimer County, Colo. Judge Stephen Schapanski sentenced the couple behind one of the year's biggest media stunts to a total of 110 days jail and eight years probation. He also prohibited the couple from making any money off the balloon boy fiasco during that time... "'I do want to reiterate that I'm very, very sorry,' Richard Heene said, pausing before continuing, 'and I want to apologize to all the rescue workers out there and the people that got involved in the community. That's it.' " -- ABC News
• "This month, Robert Sanchez, a senior staff writer with 5280 Magazine, published an in-depth look at the viral "Balloon Boy" stunt after spending several days with the family accused of planning the hoax, though the parents still claim to this day it was not a stunt... But behind the dramatic day was a detailed plan. Sanchez said the parents were trying to get a television show started, but nobody was expressing any interest. So, they hatched a plan: Richard would build a metallic craft-shaped balloon with his family’s help and they would take videos of the process... Suspicions arose when Falcon looked up to his dad during a CNN interview and said, 'You had said that we did this for the show.' Authorities, both locally and on the federal level, spent at least $62,000 pursuing the balloon and searching for the boy." -- The Denver Post, ABC 7 Denver

I believe that this YouTube video is contains an unedited interview that was shown on CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm8kVXDzTEY

I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

If information is not accurate then news should correct. But that has not happened. And subject admitted wasting time & apology to rescue workers/community. Bezeq2 (talk) 09:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The most recent discussion here was at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive296#Balloon boy hoax and directed people to the discussion specifically about the video by "Internet Historian" at Talk:Balloon boy hoax/Archive 3#Are we sure it was a hoax? ("Internet Historian" is also mentioned in other discussions in that archive). Nothing appears to have changed since then. FDW777 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Eggishorn, simply claiming "that an article is libel or defamation" should not be taken as a legal threat. While we don't want anyone making legal threats, we should avoid implying that something constitutes a legal threat simply because of naughty words. Alternative interpretation of the policy would mean that several user warning templates and a couple of CSD templates would be non-compliant with no legal threats policy. An absurd interpretation of the policy could mean that requesting a page making legal threats to be deleted by tagging it with {{Db-g10}} template would constitute a legal threat. Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Chad Wolf

Some eyes would be appreciated over at Chad Wolf, where there is a clear need of consensus and possibly some DS regarding how to describe the lawfulness (or lack thereof) of his appointment. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is a BLP violation if you use the word unlawful - implying conclusion of the case. Legality disputed implies the case is still pending and gets the point I think you want to convey. Revoke230 (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Revoke230, the judge made a ruling, which stands until it's overturned by a higher court. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 16:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No judge has issued an injunction to remove Chad Wolf from DHS premises, from serving, nor stop his pay. Rather the ruling blocked only very specific legal actions taken. The case is not final, and the American judicial system has a very robust appeals process. Of course, if you can show a ruling where Chad Wolf’s pay is stopped and he is actually removed from serving, please let me know. Revoke230 (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Antony Blinken & co

Can someone help me out with an annoying edit war at Antony Blinken (and also virtually every other page that Jacksonshatek has contributed to lately? They are insisting that infoboxes should not indicate these people's presumptive positions in the Biden administration. I don't know whether infoboxes for incoming government personnel should or shouldn't include their presumptive titles, but the amount of constant back-and-forth on this is getting a little ridiculous. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know what the norm on this is, but I don't think this should be included in infobox if it's just announced. Maybe if the nomination was actually submitted to the Senate and/or confirmed, but... It should probably only be in the lead/body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox is premature because he is not actually nominated yet. I wouldn't know how we could phrase it in the infobox since he is not technically the nominee yet. I have hidden the information with a note that it should be restored after Biden is inaugurated and can officially nominate his cabinet members to the Senate. It seems fine to be mentioned that Biden has chosen him to be his nominee in the lead though. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

It's clear to me we need uniform rules. This comes up nearly every single administration change I've researched, with people going back and forth. To me, I don't see why we WOULDN'T, as long as we make absolutely CLEAR they are the nominee and not in office yet (which we do already with President-elect Biden, Vice President-elect Harris, etc.) Not to mention the fact that if Wikipedia is looking to be as accurate as possible, why not go ahead and add them? It's arguably the most relevant information on the whole page, as that's why the vast majority of people will be visiting said articles in the first place.

– Sneakycrown (talk) 10:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, they are not actually a nominee for any office until Biden takes office, since only the president can make nominations to the Senate. Biden has chosen them to be his eventual nominees, but they have not been officially nominated yet. I also don't think anyone thinks we should remove the content from the article, but rather keep it in prose in the lead and the article body until it is an official nomination rather than the infobox where it could be misleading. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 11:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

How exactly would it be considered misleading, however? He is the presumptive nominee, and they rarely get retracted in the period between transition and the actual point they take office and generally just makes wikipedia more accurate overall with the information we know of at this point. Articles can reflect new information as it comes out but to wait when we know for a fact that he is going to be biden's nominee is just silly to me and waiting for no real reason. - Sneakycrown (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's important to note nominations are not always successful, and that is part of the point of WP:CRYSTAL. Trump had 4 failed nominations, and Obama had 3. We don't "know for a fact" a prediction about the future, which is why a term like "presumptive nominee" may be appropriate but "nominee" isn't. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Forgive the ping, but I've noticed that Tartan357 has identified at least one bit of consensus that might help here. They've been pointing out on a number of these pages that Template:Infobox officeholder/doc notes: The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place. I don't know if this represents a longstanding consensus or just one template-doc-writer's view, but it's something. It also doesn't settle the general question of how people should be referred to outside the infobox. [Such-and-such]–designate seems a popular choice, but that seems at least OR-adjacent to me since I don't recall any sources referring to anyone as [Secretary of X]-designate. It's OK as a compromise position, I guess. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That was my understanding of how infoboxes worked, and I am not sure why there would need to be a rush to update them. Even for elected officials, we usually wait until after they take office to add their position to the infobox. Does anyone know if there is a better place to have this discussion and get responses? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

My feeling is that we're not a newspaper nor a crystal ball. An encyclopedia should be written from a "perfect" or "timeless" temporal perspective, as if what we write today will still be good 100 years from now. Adverbs like "today", "tomorrow", or "yesterday" should be avoided, and replaced with actual dates. We should avoid reporting things that "will" happen in the future; at best we can say as of so-and-so date it was scheduled to happen on such-and-such a date (that's still reporting past events). Articles should be written like we're writing from outside the timeline looking in. With infoboxes, I think it's especially important to avoid jumping the gun, because a lot of people will only look at the infobox and take it as the here and now. No one knows what the future really holds, and nothing is ever a foregone conclusion. A lot can happen between now and then. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth, while I agree with you regarding the use of 'temporal adverbs', I fail to see how WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS apply in this instance, as this is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Biden has announced that Blinken et al will be his nominees. This is not the speculation of a few Wikipedia editors. It is also not our responsibility if a lot of people will only look at the infobox and take it as the here and now, unless we say that Blinken has assumed office as Secretary of State.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't so much referring to those, although in hindsight I can see how that would be confusing. I was more or less saying that we don't want our articles to read like a newspaper or a fortune teller. Encyclopedic writing, albeit a form of expository writing and in many ways very similar to journalistic style, it's still a very different way of writing. For example, unlike nearly all nonfiction, it's done in the third person rather than the first. (And to all the academics reading this, we should avoid the second person like the plague, except on talk pages. Academics love to write in the second person ... for some reason.) Newspapers are done in a present perspective, but not encyclopedias, and there are a lot of other differences to consider. It's more about how we phrase things rather than the information itself. Zaereth (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, I don't think the comparison applies. If we look at the Senate freshman class for the 117th Congress, Ben Ray Luján, Cynthia Lummis, Roger Marshall, John Hickenlooper, Bill Hagerty, and Tommy Tuberville all have information in their infoboxes saying "United States Senator-elect from state". We can continue to look further at both Biden and Harris, who have equivalent words ot that effect.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, that text that Tartan357 pointed out doesn't seem to apply for these cases; they would instead apply for the incumbent officeholder, like Mike Pompeo at the Department of State. I don't really see how that applies in this instance. I am personally fine with either "nominee" or "designate" in the infobox.

Sdrqaz (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that "nominee" is appropriate since that is not accurate. It would be like putting "Senator" instead of "Senator-elect", which would obviously be wrong. I don't have strong feelings about excluding the infobox, although I don't see any reason for why the infobox needs to be included prematurely, and I agree with Zaereth's reasoning. I do strongly believe that we should not put incorrect information into the infobox until that information is actually true. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

wallyfromdilbert, while the pedant in me agrees with you, multiple reliable sources have described Blinken et al as being the nominees of Joe Biden. I don't think that this is premature. The arguments cited by Zaereth (WP:CRYSTAL etc) apply if there had been no announcement at all. But there has been one. It would be accurate to describe them as being "designated nominees". Sdrqaz (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I do think that "presumptive nominee" is better than "nominee" since that seems to be clearly prediction of the future. There is already a lot of confusion about how the cabinet process works, including some who have argued that Biden has already officially nominated individuals or that Senate confirmation is guaranteed and/or irrelevant, and we should strive to avoid contributing to that problem. I think that the infobox can be misleading since it doesn't have the context to talk about how a future president has chosen someone to eventually be their nominee, but I am fine with the proposal to just use a qualifier for "nominee" in the infobox that can be further explained in prose. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, True; I was reading sloppily. Worth pointing out that Template:Infobox officeholder/doc also has a whole section on what to do with "nominees" or "candidates": Template:Infobox_officeholder/example#Nominee/candidate.

In general: I think there's a disanalogy between presidents-, vice presidents–, and representatives-elect, on the one hand, and Cabinet member–"designate" on the other. Presidents-elect, etc, do not have an additional hurdle to pass through—namely, the (acrimonious, non-rubber stamp) Senate confirmation process. Prospective Cabinet appointees do. So their status is less clear.

My personal preference, then, would be to avoid using "designate" in infoboxes or article bodies (I think it's vaguely ORish) and to refer to people like Antony Blinken as the presumptive nominee until January 21; the nominee after January 21 (or whenever the nomination occurs); and, of course, the, e.g., Secretary of State once they're confirmed. But this seems overly pedantic and difficult to police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AleatoryPonderings (talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, I assume you mean January 20 (but that's largely irrelevant to this debate). Like I pointed out to wallyfromdilbert, multiple reliable sources have described Blinken, Yellen et al as being "nominees" and not qualifying it further. I think "presumptive nominee", "designated nominee", or "nominee-designate" etc are all fine in the infobox; I just don't like excluding the nominated office from the infobox because it removes an important piece of information. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think "presumptive nominee" or "designated nominee" are a good terms. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, for the date, yes, I meant whenever the inauguration is. You're right that news sources do seem to be describing Cabinet picks as nominees, although I think that's technically false as a matter of law. But we follow the RS, so nominee, without qualification, seems fine to me. As GoodDay notes below, we should do this consistently everywhere. I guess I !vote for nominee in all cases. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

This debate is incredibly frustrating for me because the pedant in me is vehemently against calling Blinken and Yellen just "nominees". I would much rather call them "presumptive" or "designated" nominees. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

TBH - I don't give a bleep about what yas decide. Just asking (BEGGING) that ya'll implement it consistently. For those that require Senate confirmation? Use Nominee or Nominee-designate, but use one, not both. If yas want to delete the entire thing? then do that for all of them. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for political nominations

• Is there a concern that people have with the term "presumptive nominee"? Seems like a pretty good solution to this debate is to keep the infobox but use that phrase rather than just "nominee". If there is consensus for it, I think we could even add that to the infobox template for clarity in the future to avoid this same situation recurring. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support - presumptive nominee in the infoboxes, will suffice. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I think while it would be a reasonable compromise, I still don't understand why we need 'presumptive' there. It's not like we can't cite sources saying these people are going to be nominated. But cemantics, I suppose. -Sneakycrown (talk) 22:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Well it's either a compromise or editors get blocked for edit-warring / articles get protected because of edit warring. GoodDay (talk) 02:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support presumptive nominee, with nominee (unqualified) as second choice. Would give us a uniform rule to apply in these scenarios without having to parse individual RS once a nomination has been made to see if they say "nominee" without qualification or with some qualification. If this is adopted, we should say "presumptive nominee" or "nominee" (as the case may be) absolutely everywhere in the article—there should be no inconsistency between infobox and body. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I still think, for the infobox, we should wait until he actually gets the job. The problem I see with "presumptive nominee" is that, while we all know what that means (because we're talking about it), the average reader is going to look at that and say, "WTF?". It's like calling someone "a little bit pregnant". You either are or you aren't. The infobox should list the person's current profession, period. I don't see any good reason why we should rush it. It's already in the article for those who want to know more, but the infobox is just a list of basic attributes. Zaereth (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I would object to this because most people would know what presumptive nominee is. The more that I think about it the more I actually like it. It states, quite clearly, the information as we know it at that point, which again, is the basic function of an encyclopedia, is providing the most up to date, accurate information as we know it. There is such a thing as being too cautious. Sneakycrown (talk) 23:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support presumptive nominee, until Biden formally nominates them upon becoming president. These debates have gone on for too long, with edit wars and reverts all over the place. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Support presumptive nominee, the longer I think about it, the more I think it benefits everyone. We need to have uniform rules, and if this makes it so everyone lives with it then so be it. Sneakycrown (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, but I oppose adding another parameter to the infobox (whether to the template or otherwise). Zaereth is right: waiting has been our long-standing policy, and waiting has historically worked—after all, people die, some reported nominees don't always get their positions (I'm thinking of the case of John B. Stetson Jr., for instance), and nominations do fail. The infobox should show current and former offices and current professions, without any additions for expected future positions; the way I see it, that's the only way to respect WP:CRYSTAL: after all, "otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident". Let's not rush things: there's no need to make this change. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113, although I am admittedly not an expert on Stetson, a cursory reading of his page seems to show that he was not announced to be a nominee; rather, it was speculation in the press that President Coolidge was to do so. This is not the case here: Blinken and Yellen have been announced by Biden to be his choices as nominees. Yes, people die. Biden may die between now and Inauguration Day. But that does not preclude us calling him the president-elect in his infobox. The passage you quoted from WP:CRYSTAL was incomplete: the beginning of the sentence states that Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place (emphasis in text). We are not mentioning the date here, and my reading of WP:CRYSTAL is that the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113, just to be clear, this isn't about adding another parameter to the infobox, but about what term to use for the "status" parameter in Template:Infobox officeholder (and also whether to include the infobox). While I agree with you and Zaereth that we should wait on the infobox entirely, using that the term was my suggested compromise. I personally think it makes more sense for the infobox for public officials to be limited to changes in an actual status, such as a candidate who has filed for office, a nominee who has been submitted for nomination, or an elected official who is pending inauguration. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Wally, Sdrqaz. Having taken a bit more time to think about it, I think it could work —just changing "|status = Presumptive nominee", right? Hm. I still think we should only have the following three statuses for that parameter: acting, de facto, nominee. But that's another matter entirely; here, at least, I think that having it covered in the lead, or the body, of the biography is enough, at least until one is formally nominated or installed. I just can't see how jumping the gun as a good thing, especially given the vicissitudes of life. After all, if nothing else, we have time: WP:NO DEADLINE; we can wait the few weeks before the formalities, non? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Javert2113, your comment is exactly what I think about the issue. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Javert2113: Yes, that's basically the substance of the proposal. We'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this matter: I understand the point about WP:NO DEADLINE, but since the news would be written in the lead and article text of the individual, I don't see why it shouldn't be included in the infobox as well. These times are tumultuous, but Wikipedia will keep up as necessary. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose because "presumptive nominee" isn't an official position. We just don't add that to an infobox until they become actual nominees. Their articles' lead or text may mention that Biden chose to nominate them once he assumes the office of the President, but that's not an official status until they are nominated. Putting that information into an infobox might make it look official to readers. "Presumptive nominees" have no responsibilities or authority, while actual nominees have to be investigated by the appropriate committee in the Senate and submit paperwork. Enivid (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

@Enivid: I'm afraid that's not true. Presumptive nominees have received committee hearings and gone through most of the committee process during the lame-duck period. Recent examples would include Gen. Jim Mattis, who had his nomination favourably reported by the Armed Services Committee January 18, 2017 and a waiver passed by Congress January 13; Hillary Clinton had a Saxbe fix passed and signed into law in December 2008, her nomination hearing began January 13 and was reported favourably on January 15; Donald Rumsfeld had his nomination hearing on January 11, 2001. The list goes on. Just because the nomination has not been officially made does not preclude the Senate from acting. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Enivid (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, "presumptive nominee" is not an official position and there is no official nomination for the Senate to consider yet, which is why only committee hearings can be held (because they are determined by internal Senate procedure). Those "presumptive nominees" still have no authority or responsibilities in any legal sense, and the Senate itself holds no hearings and cannot vote on the nomination at all. The actual submission of the nomination that the Senate can consider is not allowed to be done until after the president-elect takes office. For example, Donald Rumself was not nominated until January 20, 2001, and Jim Mattis was not nominated until January 20, 2017. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to also note in response to Enivid's initial comment, the nominees do not "have to be investigated by the appropriate committee in the Senate and submit paperwork". While that is ordinarily part of the modern Senate process, it is not required by any law and is not always followed in the same manner, and any Senate rules can be overridden by a Senate vote. The only legal requirements for a cabinet member is that they are nominated by a president and confirmed by the full Senate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be in contradiction to the link provided by Sdrqaz — that states that the nomination's date for Rumsfeld was January 11. Enivid (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Enivid, that's for a Senate committee not the Senate, and committee procedures are determined by internal Senate rules and have no legal effects (since Senate procedures are determined by a vote just by the Senate and are not passed by the Senate or signed by the president, and so have no relevance beyond the Senate itself). As per the link I cited above for his actual nomination, that cannot happen until the nominating president is actually president. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: I take your point, but given how presumptive nominees are described in reliable sources and how they receive committee hearings, they can probably be accurately described as de facto nominees. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I definitely understand where you are coming from, but I do not agree that they are "de facto nominees". I think when their upcoming nomination is mentioned in the body and lead, it can be described with additional context to make that status clear. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Strongly oppose using infoboxes for people who have not actually been nominated yet. Yes, there are scads of so-called "news" articles out there labeling these people as "nominees" but they're using the term either loosely or proleptically. "Nominee-designate" or "presumptive nominee" or whatever is good enough for the lede, but it's not formal enough that it should be considered worthy of the infobox. Think about it this way: speaking generally, the kind of information that we reserve for infoboxes is the kind of information that never gets removed from infoboxes (unless we change our standards for what goes there, like for religion several years ago): spouses (new ones may be added, but old ones don't go away), birth dates, offices held, etc. Once you achieve some kind of infobox-worthy office, that information stays there in your article forever. However, by putting information about people being nominated for offices into their infoboxes, we have already taken one step back from our standard and created a situation where information really does get removed from the infoboxes of those whose nominations fail (e.g., Andrew Puzder, whose infobox in late January 2017 showed him as "United States Secretary of Labor / Nominee" before the nomination failed; his infobox now says nothing about him ever having been nominated). I actually think that decision (to include nominations in infoboxes) is itself worth reconsidering (for one thing, we are very inconsistent about it: we add infobox information for nominees to Cabinet positions, but not for nominees to judicial positions? not even the Supreme Court? ACB's infobox didn't say she was a nominee to the Supreme Court before she was confirmed; only once she had been confirmed, it went in a matter of minutes from saying simply that she was an incumbent judge of the Seventh Circuit to saying that she was a justice of the Supreme Court, assuming office imminently). But I think it is sheer madness to come to a consensus in favor of taking yet another step back and saying that we should include not only offices for which people have actually been nominated, but also offices for which we have merely been told that they will be nominated. That's two steps removed from the kind of permanent, irrescindible information that is generally considered infobox-worthy and even more embarrassing for us if any of these people don't actually end up getting nominated (let alone confirmed). Slow your roll, guys. It'll be okay. In another six weeks, Biden can send nominations to the Senate officially, and we can update like crazy. It'll be a party. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 16:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Christ. Nominee and/or assuming office wasn't enough, we now have presumptive nominee? Oppose. Put it in the lead, or the body, in the meantime. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose infobox until positions are official. While I started this discussion and proposed the compromise so that we at least wouldn't have incorrect information in the infobox by calling them "nominee", I just wanted to make clear that I think the infobox is unnecessary until they have actually been nominated, and prefer just keeping the information in the body for now (and lead where significant). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: You proposed the compromise & now you're going against it? BTW, at this moment an edit spat has developed at the Lloyd Austin article, over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

GoodDay, I proposed the compromise to try to find common ground, but I do not actually think that is preferable. I favor keeping the infobox out until a position is official, and I think even including official nominations is excessive. I have tried to clarify that by expanding on the "oppose" I left above. It doesn't seem like any type of clear consensus here though, and so if there are still editing debates about this, then it may be useful to create an actual RfC somewhere where it will be seen by more interested editors. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Right now @KidAd: has dug in his heals at Lloyd Austin article, pushing to use Nominee (instead of Nominee-designate) & thus throwing that article out-of-sync with the others. Do you both want the articles protected or editors blocked? GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

"Nominee-designate" is a made-up term. Until reliable sources use it to describe Biden cabinet selections, it is WP:OR. As for Do you both want the articles protected or editors blocked?, I have no idea what you're even trying to say. KidAd talk 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Well then, I'm changing all to Nominee. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't seem like the proper reaction. I think the discussion here supports either excluding the infobox until the nomination is official or including "presumptive nominee". It seems like several people have expressed concerns about using the term "nominee" before the nominations are submitted to the Senate. In general, during an editing dispute, the disputed material should be probably be left out entirely until an actual discussion can reach a conclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We can't have them messed up, we need consistency. From what I can tell, you & KidAd seem the most determined about this topic & so it's likely something that should be worked about between the two of you, as a starter. GoodDay (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

So now the BOTH of you are fighting me on these articles, in opposite directions? SO FRUSTRATING, you both are. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You were frustrated before I got here, and no one is trying to fight anyone else. Try taking a break. KidAd talk 02:16, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

We do not have to have all pages looking exactly the same, although that certainly is nice when it can be done with consensus. As I already said, if there is an ongoing editing dispute, then I would recommend removing the infobox changes until a consensus for inclusion can be reached per WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

James Mwangi

James Mwangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I get some opinions on the content in the James Mwangi#Controversy section, please? An IP editor left a message on my talk page earlier today:

Hi, whats your opinion on the edits of this based on the sources. They have been tagged as possible BLP sources. For this another user who is inherently promoting the page has reverted the edits. The edits are about sexual assault allegations about James Mwangi. I feel the reversal is subjective as the articles are inherently notable based on the specifics of the allegations and verifiability. James mwangi is a public figure whose personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest . Esther Passaris gave actual interviews to these sites (Nairobi news of nation.africa and Tuko News), there are actual court records about these allegations. These are actual allegations that can be cleaned up but not removed. Esther Passaris spoke directly to Nairobi News and Tuko News, as per the article. Business today reported as per court records. All which can prove mwangi's conduct on these allegations to meet inline citations. What is your opinion on this?

----197.237.79.204 (talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why they picked me to ask, since I don't believe I've edited the page. I also don't have any familiarity whatsoever with Kenyan sources, which makes it a bit more difficult to evaluate the reliability. To me the section seems a bit questionable—focusing somewhat heavily on alleged actions of a totally different BLP, as well as on allegations that have not been proven in court. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That does seem hard to properly evaluate without better knowledge of Kenyan sources as none of them look particularly high quality. While the article subject does seem to be well-known, these types of allegations need very good sourcing, and I don't think that has been met in this case (although it seems to be more of a question of whether the content is due given the low quality sources more than the verifiability of whether the allegations were actually made). Some of the claims about the accuser are definitely entirely inappropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I had a few moments, so I picked through the sources. They're all in English, so that makes it easier. Many countries offer news in multiple languages, almost always including English when they do.

First, the stuff on the sexual harassment should go immediately. It's not an assault, as we've labeled it, but it still falls under BLPCRIME, and should be deleted immediately.

Sources 27 is Nairobiwire, which is a blog. Obviously no good.

28.) Tuko.co is a gossip-news magazine, or what we in English call a tabloid. Also no good.

29.) Youth Village.co is a youth-based magazine, but this article is an op/ed column, and not only that, it says the opposite of what the article says, in that the author believes the subject was being blackmailed with these allegations. Still, not a good source.

30.) Kahawa Tungu seems like a good news site, but is just a reprint of the same op/ed column as Youth Village. Also reports this as blackmail of the subject.

31.) Standard Entertainment and Lifestyle looks like a reputable entertainment news site. However, the article does not mention the subject once, and no sign this has anything to do with him.

32.) Business Today also looks like a reputable news site, but it's really a news blog. Same as 31. No mention of the subject even once.

33.) Kahawa Tunga looks like a good source for the cited info. But is it undue? That's a question for another board.

34.) Business Times is a news blog. No good

35.) Business Today is a news blog. Also no good. (Not to mention I notice that a newly created article Business Today (Kenya) is related to this, and is up for deletion.)

For these reasons i have removed everything except source 33 and its associated info. I see no BLP violation with that, although I would hardly call it a controversy (at least, not by the dictionary definition of the word). It should be worked into the text, that is, if it is even due weight at all, but I'll leave that for others to fix. I also removed the name of his wife, because there's no indication that she's notable. Zaereth (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

And it looks like it was added right back. I'll revert it one more time, but it might be worth it to have an admin look into page protecting this article. The poorly sourced info should not go back in, and the allegations most certainly need to remain out as a blatant violation of BLPCRIME. As is, I'm at 3RR, and, although I believe this is exempt from the 3RR rule, I don't have time for it and will let someone else handle it from here. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for that thorough review of the sources. That was my initial impression on them as well. Without high quality sourcing, I agree that this information is not appropriate to include. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Note that an IP has also started a discussion on the article's talk page, and so I provided them a response there and informed them of this discussion as well. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Zaereth, for your very thorough review. I agree with your conclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

As per this link from kahawatungu " a good source for the info" it is safe to return the sexual assault allegations. I do not agree on the classification of Business Today as a blog because notability of the editor can be established and has a history of opinioned work that is reputable. see this and this. Also look at sources such as this from Çnyakundi.com. The editors of these sites have reputations of having been involved in specific opinion work that is reputable. This is evidenced in court rooms, judgements against editors of these sites which Zaereth (talk) has described as blogs. So now because this has been added from another blog with a provable editorial reputation we have to discredit it. The same kahawatungu is also a blog associated with Robert Alai as per this. So technically according to Zaereth (talk) some editors with a proven reputation of reputable editorial work are ignored while others content is taken up.

Back to the specific issue of sexual assault, according this link, another activist Boniface Mwangi also shares the same opinion of supporting the allegations as credible. According to the activist boniface, james mwangi has assaulted several women. Even if you claim that these allegations have to be from reputable sources, can all these independent people with their own mind target James Mwangi for nothing in the public media?

On wikipedia, these were allegations added as controversy. The specific reason i support addition of these as controversy is because they are mentioned by notable people to the public media in the public domain. That's why this qualifies as a controversy. The exact edits on the page were clear to indicate claims and allegation. Mwangi is a public figure; against whom a series of reputable editors and activists have reported allegations against him.

Mwangi has a history of bribing bloggers and paying editors, see this. From a neutral point of view mwangi has legitimately been reported to have assaulted Esther Passaris. Did he actually assault her? No way to know. But according to what was reported by these sources the allegations qualify to be returned on the page as allegations.

On Land grabbing, this matter qualifies as a controversy on the page, because it is not routine activity of his career to engage in land grabbing as per the entry done under career section. I see it geniune and reasonable to return the edits. I am not targeting Mwangi, but i am basing on sources from reputable editors. Everywhere in the world whenever allegations by reputable people are published by reputable editors for claims against reputable individuals they are newsworthy and inherently qualify to make valid wikipedia entries (as long as they are reported). Mwangi should take the bloggers, editors and personalities who have reported this to court. As a neutral editor it is imperative to stick to facts reported based on citations by reputable sources such as reputable editors and notable persons involved. Otherwise what is the purpose of reading in the first place, if we do not refer to sources that have an editorial opinion to form conclusions about issues. Consequently its not practical to discredit some reputable bloggers then omit some info then use others of other reputable bloggers otherwise described as editors. It is standard practise everywhere in the world that when a stroy breaks, some journalists refuse to cover, others cover it. Does this selective actions makes the news not noteworthy? Definately not. I think this is the case on this matter. The only instituition that can dispute veracity of this sources is a court judgement against the allegations published by SOME reputable editors, which again will simply be added as another entry on the controversy.

If mwangi has an issue, he should take the persons to court and have it reported, then that will be added as another entry. Wikipedia sources that pass WP:GNG are qualified to be added. The edits qualify to be returned as per WP:SUSPECT with self sufficient explanatory information. All these editors cannot honestly be mad to tarnish mwangi's name based on baseless accusations, including the fact that other notable persons participated or supported the allegations in their individual right. Mwangi is a public figure and his personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest.

--2C0F:FE38:2022:DBF0:1:1:5898:E8B5 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Having a "reputation of having been involved in specific opinion work that is reputable" is not a reliable source. Sources need to have a reputation for fact-checking and for editorial oversight. If one person is self-publishing their own blog or the blog has no reputation for editorial oversight engaged in fact-checking, then they are generally not going to be reliable. For an accusation of a serious crime, there would need to be multiple high-quality sources to include the information. If you have those, I would suggest providing them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

really? Self published sources? According to the article, it is based on facebook posts by passaris and media interviews by passaris herself as a victim and notable person. According to WP: SUSPECT a source can be added with a sufficient self explanatory statement. Where is it written that it requires multiple sources? This consensus found kahawatungu to be reliable for info. So again no basis for such a statement. Argument stands matter is safe for return based on reliable source.

-2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Where was there a discussion about kahawatungu being reliable? Zaereth said that it seemed like a good news site, but already noted that the article about the sexual assault alleged sexual advances is an op-ed copied from another site. The other article [1], Zaereth raised questions about whether it was due given the sourcing. Looking into the site more, while it doesn't look like a blog like many of the other sources, I can find no information about its editorial oversight or reputation for fact-checking, and they do differentiate between what is an opinion or editorial (such as the article about the sexual assault alleged sexual advances) versus more news-oriented content (such as the article about the land). The article you cite to them regarding the sexual assault alleged sexual advances is also written by Robert Alai and looks to be clearly an editorial/opinion column rather than any sort of news reporting. That article doesn't look reliable for any purpose on Wikipedia, much less the serious accusation of sexual assault sexual misconduct. Finally, if you don't think that making serious accusations against living people requires multiple high-quality sources, then you need to spend some time reading WP:BLP and specifically WP:WELLKNOWN. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Here is your second source.This plus the first one qualifies as multiple. -2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 00:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

That is a blog, and the other source was an opinion article. Neither of those is reliable. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:SUSPECT, it is reasonable to add back and clearly indicate according to the specific blog plus opinion article (with sufficient self explanatory reasons). Even the actual tweets and Facebook posts as per WP:USESPS can pass to include this. Esther passaris gave a media interview to two blogs, she posted on her Facebook page, she posted on her Twitter page, Boniface Mwangi posted on his Twitter page. All these clearly and concisely stated qualify for addition considering the two sources only: kahawatungu and cnyakundi (plus sources from these individual pages). Boniface mwangi is not self published in case you want to bring that again. You seem to be fighting these edits with seriously lame reasons considering am repeating sources I shared earlier. -2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Again your statement of unreliability is false. See WP:NEWSBLOG These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process.[8] If a news organization publishes an opinion piece in a blog, attribute the statement to the writer, e.g. "Jane Smith wrote ..." . I have lifted exact sentence so we don't keep arguing in circles about the same thing.This clearly matches what I said earlier about clearly adding it back and clearly describing it while attributing to the writer with sufficient self explanatory reason -2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 01:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to continue with this discussion, so I'll leave it to others for the time being. I just leave off by trying to explain, but first a question. Why is this so important to you? Do you have a personal stake in this? If so, you should read WP:Conflict of interest.

Personally, I've never heard of this guy until it was brought to this board. I did read the sources, each and every one. I've been participating at this board for a long time, and reviewing sources is what we all do here. It's really easy to tell what kind of source you're dealing with in very short order. A good source will stand out. Blogs and other sources that anybody can make are not reliable. Every news outlet has opinion/editorial columns, but those aren't reliable columns --even if the actual new articles they publish are. A real news article will give opinions of experts or other such people whose opinions really matter, and they will not only attribute those opinions to the expert, but will go out of their way to find opposing opinions and give those fair coverage too. In a really good news article you can't tell what the author's opinion is because they never let it show. It makes no difference what some writer or editor thinks. Those op/ed columns are just special-interest pieces, to fill space.

Now, besides the lack of good sourcing, there are several other problems I have seen. Some of these sources, such as the op/ed columns, say the opposite of what was written in our article. Those sources said that they believed he was innocent, and everyone who knows the subject says the allegations are crazy, and they think this woman is just greedy and trying to blackmail him. We can't just WP:Cherrypick the info we like and ignore the rest. We have to give a summary of the source as a whole. (That is, if those were good sources, but they weren't, so that's really moot in this case.) Then two of the other sources were about lawsuits against the bank, and never mention the subject. Just because he works for the bank doesn't mean he's a plaintiff in every lawsuit they get into, and we can't use that source to try to make such a connection when the source itself makes no such connection. See WP:Synthesis. That's just scratching the surface.

Now for some event to be exempt from BLPCRIME, it has to be very widely covered in reliable sources. We don't count non-reliable sources like blogs. There can't be just one or two sources reporting on it, but it needs to be widely reported as such that there's no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Lastly, and most importantly, you all have to stop calling this an "assault". That word has a very specific meaning, implying it was done with violence, and none --not one-- of the sources describes an assault nor do they even call it that (and wisely so). At best, this allegation falls under harassment, but to use the word "assault" is downright false , and that is a violation of BLP that I can't just stand by and watch. And BLP applies to talk pages too. Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Zaereth (talk) am not trying to cherry pick sources for addition.

The argument here is that we must stick to the rules. Not imagined sentiments or ideals that are not wikipedia rules. We refer to WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:SUSPECT. If we go down the road of sentimental activity and how long you have been editing we will be losing direction here.

I dont have any interests in this matter Personally. But I feel sexual harrasment by people like mwangi should not be swept under the rag in many unexplained sentiments or blogger fights. He should face these people in actual court rooms.

Let's stick to facts and rules, not your imaginations. What I wonder is that, have you too been paid to fight this? Mwangi as per above has had a history of paying editors and writers for such activity as per sources shown above.

The issue on this matter is the wording. I participated in this discussion because I too felt there was need for clarity on this especially on wording.

Those your claims about sources and blogs, please refer to rules on wikipedia. Again please let's refer to rules to remain sane in this. Please don't make this personal with sentiments. Let's stick to the rules . The rules apply to mwangi, you, whether you have been paid or not. That's why Im here too. If there were no rules why waste time explaining myself or anything to you or participating.

Let's stick to rules, facts, citations and references. If you still dispute addition please show rules that we can refer. If you claim I am cherry picking, simply add all that I missed out. Am I preventing you from adding what I have missed? Of course not . So please don't lose direction on things that are not rules. That's why we are here, because of rules that apply to all of us, me included.

I repeat Mwangi is a public figure with a wikipedia page, and his conduct in the public domain is of public interest as per wikipedia rules. Whether you know him or not he has a Wikipedia page as a public figure.lets stick to facts, rules, references and citations without being sentimental.-2C0F:FE38:2029:DC64:1:2:59CD:3DEC (talk) 02:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

None of these sources meet our very strict requirements for claims about living persons. See WP:RSP and our policies at WP:BLPSOURCES for details on the types of sources that we're looking for. Woodroar (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I wish! I'm just some guy on the opposite side of the planet, who cares about the BLP rules very much. You keep saying stick to them, and that is exactly what we're doing. You didn't just carelessly omit a few things. You completely missed the point of the op/ed, and completely turned it around 180 degrees. You pulled out info that met your narrative and left out all the other stuff that didn't That is textbook synthesis, which is what all cherrypicking is. Please don't insult our intelligence like that. This is all part of the core policy WP:No original research.

You ask why I don't just fill in what you missed. First, I'm not here to do your job for you. The WP:ONUS is on the one who wants it to make sure it complies.

You can't just cherrypick policy either. You should think of it as one, big equation, where the info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. First, NOR. Then, verifiability. Then, reliable sourcing. next, is neutral point of view, which in itself re a bunch of hurdles. But let's say you did include all of the info from that op/ed. Next is WP:Due weight. Here, we have to weigh the sourcing against all of the other sources on this guy. Not just what's in the article, but all sources. Then it needs to be put into proportion with the size of the article. Does it deserve an entire section, or just one paragraph? Or would that be too much. Maybe it deserves no more than a single sentence. Or maybe even that is too much, given the size of the rest of the article. But now you'd have to put it into the proper proportion.

But that's all moot, because the sources are not reliable. You still haven't even cleared the first hurdles. Zaereth (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I still do not agree with this argument completely. Just because it's a blog and no fact checking or oversight doesn't mean this story was not fact checked. And Zaereth (talk) you need to get this clearly in your head, it's not personal and no one has a stake in your feelings. This is a blp noticeboard where we refer to specific things. I don't know what bothers you with my location and stickler to rules that you keep writing this sentimental comments with so much pain. Can't you give comments and feedback without pain and complaints. No one is targeting you, no one is targeting mwangi, no one is after you. These is an open and transparent dialogue by normal people.

On fact checking according to tuko

TUKO.co.ke decided to call the 52-year-old Passaris and get the full story. First, she has admitted that she has authored the tweets. Secondly, she is not crazy. She is frustrated, very frustrated!- this is clear fact checking and oversight.

Passaris continues to tell TUKO.co.ke that during a Strathmore Business School training that was held at Mount Kenya Safari Club, Mwangi kept pestering her for sex. She says he even tried to get into her room but Passaris warned him to keep off.- this is sexual assault not harrasment.

This was an actual verifiable event that actually happen but has been fought by editor payments and blogger fights. See this

This is Tuko a site with a reputation for fact checking and oversight. Zaereth (talk) you need to get this into your head clearly, I have no personal stake in this and I don't feel pain or embarrassed about being on the opposite side of the planet. You think your side gives you better views of actual facts. I am not here to fight you, whatever pains you about me, you need to redirect it to actual references and rules; not your wild sentimental outbursts that have this misguided idea that being on the opposite side of the planet is a pain and following rules are very strange things.

On issue of cherry picking policy, this should be re-added and give room for additional sources that pass more consensus . Multiple people were involved in these, politicians, media and activist but these issues have been fought using editor payments and blogger fights. Tuko has a wikipedia page on it's own, it verified the story directly from the source (Esther passaris), it published screenshots from the source on facebook. Now you want to use my location on the planet to rubbish me in the name that it doesn't satisfy the equation.

This is clearly oversight and fact checking. On due weight it passes because of multiple notable people involved as mentioned who by the way happen to have wikipedia pages for reference. Zaereth (talk) be serious , we are normal editors, no one is targeting anyone. We just want transparent dialogue as you seem to have a super misguided idea about my location and stickler to rules. -105.63.60.147 (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

RfC: For biography leads, do we prefer recent images or images from when the subject was most notable?

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for Comment. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC

MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Eduardo Yanga in Pat Buckley (priest)

Can I ask for an additional pair of eyes on this? Eduardo Yanga is not even remotely a public figure WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. He's mentioned briefly in the article as the husband of the article's subject. He committed a driving offence which led to his license being suspended for 20 months, which I can only find mentioned in one online article, so hardly a significant event. Within the article itself, it's coatracking and hardly significant to understanding the subject of the article. Valenciano (talk) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

That content looks like a clear BLP violation. If the article subject's husband is not notable, there is no reason to mention crimes they have been convicted of on their husband's page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah no way that belongs. There are cases where it can get complicated, e.g. there was one case where an ambassador/diplomat was recalled or at least asked to return after some controversy due to alleged offences of their husband. This is very far from that. BTW, the article link above was to a disambiguation page, since it's in the title so wasn't signed I just modified it point to the correct article as per the diff. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Sonya Curry

In the section "Early Life" occurred this sentence:

Due to her physical traits of blue eyes and dark blonde hair, Sonya Curry experienced colorism of white passing from the Charlotte Hornets former-owner George Shinn, who believed she was a white woman but held racist views of miscegenation with team players.

1. "Miscegenation with team players" implies that SC was having sex or had had sex with several black team players, and this implies that she was a whore.

2. No evidence is given that GS believed SC was white, that he held racist views against miscegenation, or that he was prejudiced against light-skinned blacks.

3. "Experienced colorism" implies that GS actually did something to SC that she found emotionally painful or professionally hurtful, and that she knew GS did it because he knew that she was a light-skinned black woman. No evidence is given for either implied claim.

4. If GS thought SC was a light-skinned black woman, and because of his prejudice against light-skinned blacks did something to pain her emotionally or hurt her professionally, he cannot have done anything to pain or hurt her because he believed that she had had or was having sex with black men.

5. If GS thought that SC was white, and that she outraged his ideal of racial purity by sleeping with black men, then he cannot have done anything to pain or hurt her because of any prejudice against light-skinned blacks.

6. The sentence contains two contradictory accusations, the unsubstantiated one of colorism, which implies that SC was passing, which of course is not a crime but which implies that GS thought it was a social evil, and the unsubstantiated claim that GS nourished a racist commitment against race-mixing and that he believed SC to be having or to have had sex with several black men, which implies that she was a whore; finally, it contains the unsubstantiated implied claim that GS was guilty of violating SC's constitutional rights.

7. The link to the article containing Sonya Curry's claims is no evidence, since her claims are hearsay evidence of hearsay evidence

I have explained my criticisms more elaborately in the Talk Page section "Problem in the Section 'Early Life,'" and on the strength of my discussion have removed the offending sentence; I submit this report only to alert WP to keep an eye on the section of this article, just in case someone reverses my edit or inserts a revised but still potentially libellous series of statements. Wordwright (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It's badly worded but I think an alternative reading of this passage is possible: that Shinn shared his racist beliefs about miscegenation, in conversations he held with team players, and that he discriminated against Curry because he believed her to be racially mixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Partly. I think especially if you read the source, [2] that the meaning is not that the team owner was suggesting she was having sex with multiple team players, but that she was used an example against miscegenation in discussions with team players. However it doesn't seem to be because he was suggesting she was racially mixed, but rather because she was an example of the ills of miscegenation as a white woman (he thought) in a relationship with her black husband. Because he was her husband, I don't think the fact they were likely having sex is contentious. In fact, sex is probably irrelevant anyway. While she was married by the time of these comments, I presume they dated before they married and for most racists, dating is just as bad as having sex. In part because it may eventually lead to sex and kids sure but the point is sex doesn't have to be involved for people to hate it. While we shouldn't suggest stuff that isn't true, dating multiple black men doesn't make someone a "whore" (not that this seems to be what happened) except by extremely sexist people. Even saying someone who has sex with multiple men is a whore is an example of fairly sexist thinking anyway, but let's put that aside. (Although in this specific case the only alleged critical commentary that's been published seems to be that people wouldn't accept it.) P.S. AFAICT, it's not clear when or even if the team owner ever "realised" she was not white. There seems to be some major confusing by the OP about the passing thing. The point as I understand it is that she "passed" as white i.e. the team owner thought she was white and therefore thought it was wrong for a black man, her husband to be with her. I don't she any suggestion prejudice against light skin blacks ever came in to it. Instead it was based on a view that black and white are separate racial groups that shouldn't form intimate relationships or have sex and the fact that he thought Dell fitted into one group and Sonya into another. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I also believe the concerns about the word miscegenation is overblown. Anti-miscegenation views include interracial marriage and does not imply that Curry was having "sex with several black team players". The sentence can be reworded to make that clear. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Sofía del Prado

My name is Sofía del Prado and I am the subject of Sofía del Prado page. I want information in my personal life changed because it is not correct. I have never spoken out of my sexual orientationl. I had relationships in the past but those do not define me. Therefore I am not bisexual. And I want the relationship mentioned to be erased from that content. I only have my wikepedia page for work and that affects me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiadelprado16 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) https://elcierredigital.com/cultura-y-ocio/2326130/sofia-prado-missuniverso-desmiente-musa-vox.html HERE I ANSWER THAT QUESTION "me han metido dentro de un colectivo sin yo pedirlo. Defiendo la libertad sexual de cada uno, pero todo lo que se forma en torno a eso no me representa. Mantuve una relación con una mujer, pero eso no me define en general." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiadelprado16 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of whether this user is in fact the article subject, WP:LGBT/Guidelines are clear that we cannot identify the sexuality of living persons if they have not done so for themselves. The source quoted by the user seems to clearly show that the article subject does not want their sexuality labeled like that (at least judging by Google translate). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

And in any case the source in the article was about the person she dated and didn’t support what was said about the article subject. Neiltonks (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Mark Donnelly

User Lexbahn has made substantial unsourced edits to the Mark Donnelly page, and has not edited any other page on Wikipedia. I feel like Lexbahn is probably either Donnelly himself or someone affiliated with him, but I’d appreciate some extra pairs of eyes on this. Sdalmonte (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is an obvious single-subject COI account, made even more evident by the fact they deleted the account after this notice was posted. Go4thProsper (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I reverted to the last version before Lexbahn's edits as no other editor had contributed any substantive material to the article and it seemed like virtually all was unsourced promotion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Lodro Rinzler

There have been repeated attempts to add slanderous information to Lodro Rinzler's BLP, relating to an unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct while at Shambala center. The original contributors that added the information noted multiple sources, but they are simply re-shares of the original source; a blog that has since gone out of business earlier this year. If you click on any of the sources it's plain to see that everything refers to the original article.

Additionally the allegation was denied by Rinzler, there was never any evidence presented, he was never found guilty of any misconduct. Yet the information continues to be reposted. There are discussions by other contributors agreeing and confirming that the information should not exist on the page per policy unless more legitimate information was presented. I attempted to remove the content but is immediately being reposted by others, with threats that the removal of the content per BLP guidelines is somehow not allowed. Thus my only recourse is to submit this notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors (talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The two reliable sources seem to several articles by Think Progress [3] [4] and an article by Publishers Weekly [5] that references the allegations made in Think Progress when discussing why his book deal was cancelled. The other two sources look like self-published blogs. The cancellation of his book deal does seem particularly relevant, although I wonder if the specific allegations should be reworded or attributed to Think Progress. I reverted the editor's attempts to remove this content for now given the comments by other editors on the article's talk page. I should also note that it looks like there is an apparent COI regarding Mbonaccors, who has only edited this article and makes statements about apparently non-public information, and I have asked them about that on their talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I am hesitant to the argument of Think Progress as a reliable source for these matters given its listing at WP:RSP, but Publisher Weekly is one and its reliance on the report seens to indicate WP:UBO. Is that enough to satisfy WP:BLPPUBLIC if he is a public figure? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I think its a borderline case, which is why I removed some of the details and referred to the allegations more generally as "sexual misconduct". There is also some discussion on the [Talk:Lodro Rinzler#Allegations Discussion|article's talk page]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing Buddhist Door and its news content, I think it seems to be reliable enough to report on matters related to Buddhism to buttress this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Akbaruddin Owaisi

• Anindian2020 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Akbaruddin Owaisi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Anindian2020 has been edit warring to retain adding contentious material in the Akbaruddin Owaisi BLP.[6][7]

The claim they are adding is "anti-hindu and anti-national speeches" sourced at first to a YouTube video that does not pass WP:RSBLP ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-5DJivuAU ) then to an article in India Today that does not support the claim ( https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/akbaruddin-owaisi-hate-speech-aimim-bjp-cpi-1573946-2019-07-26 )

It appears that Akbaruddin Owaisi has made multiple speeches that are controversial, and that others have accused him of being ant-hindu, but per WP:BLP such claims must be attributed, not stated as if they were established facts in Wikipedia's voice. I see several problem statements in the article that have this problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(The following was moved here from my talk page.[8] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC))

India Today is a news channel. You said you contacted them & they denied the news ? Please confirm! Because this was all over the newspapers. Also you say Yuva TV is not a reliable source. How did you reach that conclusion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindian2020 (talk • contribs) 07:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: YuvaTV: "The Bharatiya Janata Party has launched an internet television channel by the name of Yuva TV... BJP’s official website prominently links to Yuva TV."[9] Related: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Yuva TV

Re: India Today: They are indeed a news channel but the link you supplied does not support the claim you used it as a reference for. Per our WP:BLP policies such claims must be attributed, not stated in Wikipedia's voice as if they were established facts instead of opinions. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Re: YuvaTV: I am a new Wikipedia user, if a link is related to BJP it becomes unreliable is it ? I want to know what is the basis of marking Yuva TV as unreliable ?

Re: India Today: If you click the link given, it says that Owaisi in his controversial remark made in 2013, said that if police is removed for 15 minutes, “we (Muslims) will finish 100 crore Hindus”. Is that not anti-Hindu ? Another link [10] in which Owaisi says that India can never be a Hindu country! The only country with Hindu majority is India & Owaisi wants to ensure Hinduism is wiped off India! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindian2020 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I think I see what your problem is. You say "Is that not anti-Hindu?" That is classic WP:OR. You need to understand what an encyclopedia is. We state verifiable facts (example: "On November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas") as facts, but we do not state opinions -- even opinions that we strongly agree with -- as facts. So let's look at [11]. We could use that as a source for a claim of "Asaduddin Owaisi asserted that India would never be a Hindu country", but we cannot use it as a source for a claim "Asaduddin Owaisi is Anti-Hindu". The reference doesn't say that. Even if you find a reliable source that actually uses the phrase "Asaduddin Owaisi is Anti-Hindu", we can only state "newspaper X (or person Y) called Asaduddin Owaisi Anti-Hindu", but we can never state "Asaduddin Owaisi is Anti-Hindu" -- an opinion -- as if it was a fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read the site? What Owaisi said was "India was never a Hindu country, nor is and will never be - God-Willing". So it is not as if he made a statement that India would never be a 'Hindu' country based on some scientific research. As Owaisi used 'God-willing' (Inshallah), in a statement like this, it shows his sentiments or bias against Hindus! And what abt my question on the India Today website, which quotes from Owaisi's speech in 2013 where he said few crore Muslims claimed he will kill 100 cr Hindus! I replaced anti-Hindu to 'pro-Muslim' & included these new sources & this was undone by a user named 'Blackkite' & I was again reported by some user HostBot that I am using unreliable sources and I am engaged in an edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anindian2020 (talk • contribs) 09:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Michelle Goldberg

There seems to be some type of infobox on Michelle Goldberg that is either libellious, or just totally unrelated to the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.116.226 (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

More of an image or collage than an infobox, I've reverted to the version before the changes made by User:Mediaviolations as well as nominated the collage they made for speedy deletion on Commons:Commons, and given them a warning here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Vladimir Leposavic

Vladimir Leposavić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) False information relying on unreliable source "Pobjeda" contained in "political career". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin002 (talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Erin002:, that's awfully nonspecific. Can you point to discrete passages you think are false or specify which sources or (better yet) provide diffs that identify the edits which you think are problematic? As it stands, this complaint is not going to generate any action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:40, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure there will be much support for categorising Pobjeda, the oldest Montenegrin newspaper still in circulation, as unreliable. - Ryk72 ^talk 00:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• This appears to be the contentious content. At a glance it looks reliably sourced. Thanks to @Erin002: for bringing it here instead of edit warring. @Fackchecker74: could learn from the example. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Palmer Report

Palmer Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

An editor have added this to Palmer Report, citing Bill Palmer's blog posts (emphasis added):

1. Unlike other political analysts he often uses logic to backup his position, for example he expected Biden to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination even after losing Iowa and New Hampshire as the third primary, South Carolina, matched the demographics of the overall Democratic primary electorate more closely.
2. Palmer Report has also been speculating since at least August 2018 that Trump will go to prison which has since been backed up by other sources.

References

Is this acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF? Politrukki (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The first example seems like a textbook example of unduly self-serving content.

In the second example two sources are cited, Palmer Report and a post in Vanity Fair's Hive blog, but don't let the second citation fool you as Hive doesn't mention Palmer Report. Hive also doesn't say that Trump is going prison.

In my view, the second example is a clear-cut example of BLP violation as it is sourced to palmerreport.com – which is "the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don't care about the credibility of the record", according to The Atlantic, and the material is improper synthesis of two sources. Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This content is clearly editorialising & synthesis. - Ryk72 ^talk 12:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The first one is clearly unduly self-serving. The second one is more complex. The first half of it is trivial to source to a secondary source (and needs to have that added and to stay because the site's position on Trump is central to its notability; there's a secondary cite for it in the lead); the sourcing requirements are also lessened when it's framed as mere speculation, since the fact that the site speculated about something isn't particularly exceptional. But the which has since been backed up by other sources bit is WP:SYNTH. --Aquillion (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Remove the first item. Find a reliable, independent, secondary source for the bold part of the second item; remove the non-bold, synthesised part. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a secondary RS is needed. Millions of people casually say Trump will be jailed. Millions said the same of Hillary, who remains at large. SPECIFICO talk 13:32, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe I’ve seen a source of Michael Cohen, Trump’s ex-fixer, saying he will go to jail so happy to add that if that will settle the issue. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Now we are getting into the weeds. The article has had several recent content disputes, but I chose to summarise only some here. It is true that the lead currently says "has built a following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump going to prison", but that is due to recent edit-warring. The status quo version is one of these:

• The site has been criticized for building a large following based on "wildly speculative theories about Donald Trump."[12]
• The site has been criticized for building a large following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump.[13]

This has been discussed on the article talk page, where I have asked how where the "going to prison" part came from. The explanation I was given was "social media" and duckduckgo.com. For the lead, I support a more general version that says "speculative theories about Donald Trump"

The source you cited is already covered quite extensively in the article, in "Criticism" section. Now I have to ask, does the source you cited support the new content "since at least August 2018"? Politrukki (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

This really seems to be a case of massive over escalation to avoid discussing it on the talk page Politrukki...

Happy to remove item one if you guys think it’s not appropriate. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 15:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Nezar AlSayyad

Multiple accounts continuously try to remove a well-sourced section on sexual misconduct allegations. The section been undone twice by User:Gamal Elsherbini. These are the account's only two edits. At http://faculty-alsayyad.ced.berkeley.edu/portfolio/xxa-partners.html, there is a Gamal Elsherbini listed as one of AlSayyad's frequent partners and collaborators. Furthermore, nearly the entire article was written by User:Pejiedita, which has also recently removed the section. Looking at all Pejiedita's contributions, it's clear that this account belongs to either AlSayyad or someone close to him. There's also an account, User:Madan Mehta, which has made only one edit—the most recent deletion of the sexual misconduct section. Essentially it's turning into an edit war to retain the section. Gbrkk (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The content looks appropriately sourced and neutrally worded. Those three accounts probably could be submitted to WP:SPI by this point. All three have edited no other pages and are repeatedly attempting to remove the same section. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Kermit Gosnell

1. The use of serial killer in lead seems contentious on the talk page. 2. I don't know know how much personal information is appropriate, but listing his DOB and other personal details seems excessive. 3. Referenced news articles appear largely sensationalist/speculative, and neutrality might be an issue. I haven't read the whole article, but I'm concerned it might be a target of activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythagimedes (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the POV-pushing label since it was not established by reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Chloe Agnew

There is constant arguing over Agnew's birthday. (Here's the article history:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Chlo%C3%AB_Agnew) User:Laterthanyouthink is trying to say there's no reliable source over her birthday when we've put two separate sources

Last I checked, Twitter can be used as a reliable source if it's minimally used and not used in either of these ways: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I don't think a tweet stating her birthday is "self-serving" despite what Laterthanyouthibk says. Here's the link https://mobile.twitter.com/ChloeAgnew/status/476201102908481538

And I mentioned above, I put a separate article that states the year of her birth: https://www.rsvplive.ie/news/celebs/chloe-agnew-twink-husband-david-12943255 (If you read the bottom of the article, it says "Twink married oboist David in 1983 and had two children, Chloe, born in 1989, and Naomi in 1993.')

And Later accused me of trying to own the article, when he's the one not listening.

Can you help me sort this out, I'm tired of fighting. Kay girl 97 (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I have pointed out, several times, WP:DOB ("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". There are good reasons why Wikipedia does not advertise living people's birthdays. Secondly, the Twitter source is actually dated 10th June, and the birthdate which keeps getting added is the 9th. Thirdly, RSVP Live is hardly a reliable source. Fourthly, her date of birth is not shown publicly anywhere else, such as her own website - it is not meant to be publicly available. And fifthly, putting together a year from an unreliable source and a Twitter post with day only, and a different date of the month to boot, is WP:OR. Lastly, I have suggested that the editor take it to the talk page of the article, which they have not done, but continued to revert, multiple times. I'm not interested in "fighting" - I'm interested in applying Wikipedia's rules and protecting someone's privacy. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

What they said. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I also noticed this edit-summary "Keep deleting it, I'll keep putting it back". User:Kay girl 97, I can assure you that's really not a good idea. It appears that you also really need to re-read WP:RS, as I notice this reply to someone who quite correctly told you to use reliable sources. Apart from your "you're an idiot" comment to them (another bad idea), the fact a random Facebook post wasn't self-published was exactly why we couldn't use it. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• For some reason I've always assumed Twitter is fine as a dob which is why I tend to use it, Although I do realise no year is included so some guesswork is needed. If it's deemed Twitter should not be used then I will also happily remove them from other artices I've sourced. –Davey2010^Talk 12:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I have nothing against Twitter being used for DOB in a WP:BLPSELFPUB manner, but it has to speak clearly on the content it is meant to support. Here [14] I'm arguing to use FB for DOB. IMO, this [15] didn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dugin

Aleksandr Dugin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is packed with editorialization in place of information

This board isn't meant for general distaste of an article, you'll need to provide more details about what specifically is objectionable and violating WP:BLP. Praxidicae (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

A glance shows nothing untoward and everything looks well sourced. OP should discuss content and sourcing on Talk:Aleksandr Dugin . --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Abigail Shrier‎

One editor has inserted a great deal of non-WP:RSs and WP:OR into Abigail Shrier‎. Here:[16] the editor has inserted self-published sources, or sources that don't directly mention Shrier or her book, which makes it WP:OR. Similar matter with this edit:[17]. The lead sentence is also non-reliably sourced. The editor has been warned of their conduct:[18], but continues to edit war and insert poorly sourced claims into a BLP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d (talk) 04:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

March Boedihardjo

There does not seem to be a reason for this man to have a Wikipedia article. According to the article he’s only “famous” for getting into college at a young age. In the talk page someone writes “March is a math wizard, a miracle of nature and a savant. I created this article to make him an icon of others who cannot afford to study in prestigious schools.” This doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for the page to exist. He does not have any influential articles or books, or even a job as a professor.

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