Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 47.205.160.37 (talk) at 14:01, 6 February 2021 (→‎Lou Dobbs: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Park Geun-hye

    She is a former president of South Korea who was impeached and later sentenced to prison for corruption and abuse of power. Until January 24 her article's lead read "Park Geun-hye is a former South Korean politician who served as President of South Korea from 2013 to 2017." Then a user named Lawrencekhoo came and changed it to "Park Geun-hye is a former South Korean politician and convicted criminal who served as President of South Korea from 2013 until she was impeached in 2017." I thought that the lead violated WP:NPV and that being a "convicted criminal" wasn't Park Geun-hye's defining characteristic, so I reverted Lawrencekhoo's changes. But a user named UncleBubba reverted me. Please take a look. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think a president being impeached and then convicted of corruption is something significant enough that it should be mentioned early on although the wording could use work and I'm not sure it needs to be the first sentence. Nil Einne (talk) 12:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I appreciate "I think" may not seem to be the best grounds for BLP. But I'm fairly sure this is reflected in recent RS where the impeachment and corruption is something that will likewise nearly always get mentioned early on. It's difficult to search, since of course most recent sources are regarding her trial, appeal, the possibility of pardon etc. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for the delay—busy day at work. Moscow Connection removed "convicted criminal", "until she was impeached", and "making her the first Korean president to be so removed" from the lede. I thought this information was interesting, pertinent and properly sourced, so I restored it. In the same edit, he added some apparently unsourced ancestry information, "her predecessors were born either during the Joseon dynasty, Japanese rule or during the post-World War II American occupation" and did not explain his actions. I attempted to verify what had been added and, after being unable to do so, reverted the edit with the comment: Rv removal of sourced text. NPV in a BLP article does not mean reliably sourced info can't be included. The ancestry information you added, however, needs a reliable source (especially since this is a BLP page). I probably should have mentioned that this added text appeared to be WP:OR, but forgot to do so. Sorry about that!
    The cited sources that I reviewed before reverting were refs #4 [1], 6 [2], 7 [3], & 8 [4].
    What I find interesting is that Moscow Connection didn't attempt to discuss the issue on the article's Talk page before coming here. Not that he must, but I believe many would consider it a courteous thing to do. Nevertheless, I believe my actions were proper on a BLP page (i.e. to err on the side of safety and sourcing). If consensus is that I goofed, I'll be happy to make it right. I patrol a fair number of BLP articles, and try my best to follow the guidelines that are peculiar to them. I suppose the bottom line is that I don't see WP:NPV and WP:BLP requiring we sugar-coat sourced information just because it's in a BLP article. Very curious, though, what y'all think. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 00:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @UncleBubba: What I found interesting was that a user came to the article basically just to add the words "convicted criminal" to the first sentence. And I didn't understand why when I reverted him, you didn't discuss the matter and just reverted me instead. Perhaps, in a way, one could say I was also very curious as to why you accepted Lawrencekhoo's version so happily.
    In my opinion, it is obvious that being a "convicted criminal" is not Park Geun-hye's defining characteristic. I came here to ask someone to revert you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moscow Connection: But you didn't revert Lawrencekhoo's edit—you undid it and added some unsourced ancestry information at the same time. Regardless, I don't agree about Ms. Park's defining characteristics. If her election and rise to power were defining, then it seems the charges of official misconduct (and subsequent conviction) most certainly are, as well. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @UncleBubba: No, I didn't add anything from myself. Check the history. I only put back what he removed. And removed what he added. (Actually, I even left something he added in.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @UncleBubba: Here's the difference: [5]. The honorific suffix was added by 120.29.76.183, the last sentence by Amyx90, "for corruption and abuse of power" by Lawrencekhoo. There are exactly zero additions by me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Moscow Connection: And this is exactly why this discussion should take place on the article's Talk page: it really should be preserved for other editors to reference. While patrolling recent changes, I saw the BLP edit you made. Your edit summary said you reverted another editor's additions, but the diff showed some apparently new, unsourced text. Since you admonished the editor to read WP:BLP, I assumed you were familiar with it, and thought it odd you would add unsourced info to a BLP. At any rate, my opinion about the additions remains unchanged because Ms. Park's (well-sourced) fall from power is as pertinent and defining as the events that led to her rise to political fame. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 02:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Uncited WP:LABEL which triggers WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chrissy Teigen

    Persistent addition of thinly sourced WP:BLP violations. Needs more eyes, perhaps protection. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I've semi-protected it for a week and revdel'ed a couple of BLP violations. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, MelanieN. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Elena A. Melnikova

    I have just translated an article from Russian WP about Elena A. Melnikova. I have not written about living people before, but understand that this is a sensitive issue. I'd appreciate a look through, to see that everything is in order.--Berig (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Berig, you need inline-citations to WP:BLP-good WP:RS for, well, pretty much everything, and you should make an effort to add English titles/descriptions for Main works, literature and EL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gråbergs Gråa Sång, I don't have time for that. I should probably just delete the article, as it is my own creation anyway.--Berig (talk) 13:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Berig That may be best for now, pashuto.ru doesn't appear to be independent of the topic, since she is "staff". But you can move it to draft and keep working on it in your own pace. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gråbergs Gråa Sång, good idea! Thanks!--Berig (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Be Best

    Persistent addition of defamatory content. Rev/deletion may be necessary. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Today’s vandal has been blocked for 31 hours. IMO it’s not bad enough for revdel. If the vandalism continues, a request to protect the article can be made at WP:RFPP Neiltonks (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks and cheers, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Symington_W._Smith

    this reads like a lot of promotional nonsense. A lot of the claims made cannot be verified. Nothing satisfies wikipedia's notability criteria. This is a grifter using Wikipedia for advertising and promotional purposes and this misuse of the platform makes me very angry. This article should be deleted. I mean it mentions articles written for student newspapers. Seriously.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.125 (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has been nominated for deletion.[6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Abuse to Wikipedia site for Ambassador George E Glass

    George Edward Glass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    we set up a very accurate history and personal story while serving at the embassy in Lisbon. When I Looked at it a few days ago someone named “Snicker2686” changed the entire thing. A lot of hard work from our public diplomacy Group was erased. I went back and added the last 2 press releases to replace the toxic opinions that snickers placed on the site. Can you please bar them from coming in and changing history. ‘ Outspoken” taken in the wrong atmosphere can be very diplomatically damaging. Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StellaPT (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @StellaPT: You should know that I've just reverted your edits back to the version by Doggy54321. You've removed a lot of well-sourced material and replaced it with material that is not only unsourced but also fails WP:NPOV. Given that you seem to have a personal stake in the subject matter this is a conflict of interest on your part: please read WP:COI. You're encouraged to discuss the edits on the article's talk page rather than reverting to your version of the article. Additionally, we wouldn't block Snickers2686 from editing the page unless he actually violated any rules (I can't see that he has). Please also see WP:OWN: no one has ownership of this page. — Czello 16:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that the editor StellaPT has been partial-blocked from the George Edward Glass article for a year, for COI and promotionalism. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    2021 Farmers' Republic Day parade

    Please see the Section #Death at ITO of the permanent link of the older version that has been contested. This subsection is a WP:NPOV summary of the information of the death of a protestor and has been added with appropriate reliable source. 2 editors are claiming on the talk page [7] that I am "in fact violating BLP, much worse by misrepresenting sources" by adding that section. And I believe that all the BLP requirements have been properly followed, no source has been misrepresented and their objection is does not have any merit. Kindly check this subsection and let me know if you find any BLP violation or source misrepresentation. If there are no BLP concerns or source misrepresentation found, please do comment below that you found none. Thank you. --Walrus Ji (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • "Indian journalists face criminal charges over police shooting reports". the Guardian. 1 February 2021.
    Added a ref.--Walrus Ji (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anima Anandkumar

    Additional experienced eyes would be welcome at Talk:Anima Anandkumar#Newest Addition and Edit. There's been a effort for the past six weeks to add a Twitter argument to the BLP. The discussion began in December at Talk:Anima Anandkumar#Twitter Controversy and continued today at Talk:Anima Anandkumar#Recent Addition and Edit War. Obviously my approach to explaining the objections to the added content isn't working. Hopefully someone else might be able to explain it better...or even disagree with my view on the issue and support the edit. TIA. Schazjmd (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sholam Weiss

    Hello,

    My name is Hershy Marton and I'm writing this message on behalf of my uncle, Sholam Weiss, who has a Wikipedia article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss. A great deal of the information on the article is inaccurate and libelous, with much of its sourcing traced back to "anonymous officials" interviewed by long-retired journalists. Given that there is a history of individuals working to slander my uncle, I believe that some of them may be involved in this Wikipedia editing. Unfortunately, despite my efforts to remove false information, it has been repeatedly added back and at this point I feel it is out of my control. In addition, I do not believe my uncle is notable enough for his own page given that he is not significant for any reason other than his crime several decades ago. In fact, none of the others involved in the crime (which includes individuals with significantly more direct and sustained involvement than my uncle) have their own page. Instead, I believe that the information about my uncle contained on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Heritage_Life_Insurance_Company) is sufficient, although I do have more minor problems with its accuracy as well.

    Therefore, I am petitioning for you to remove the article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss. Thank you very much for reading my appeal and please do not hesitate to respond if you have any questions for me! I really appreciate your efforts to help monitor a website that has helped so many people learn about the world.

    Sincerely, Hershy Marton — Preceding unsigned comment added by HershyMarton (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC) — HershyMarton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    I'd just like to note that I don't see any justification for removing this article. The subject meets our requirements for notability several times over: from the scope of the crime he was convicted of, for the unprecedented severity of his sentence, and then again recently for the controversial pardon he received from President Trump. Of course the article can be edited and improved, but I don't think it can be deleted. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC) @[reply]

    MelanieN I really don't know how this Wikipedia really works, if you believe this page cannot be scrapped, how can I make sure non biased editors are vandalizing my uncle's page? There are a number of edits done by some users that keep removing many facts, links to news articles etc. and keep adding opinions rather than facts for the sole purpose to defame my uncle Mr. Weiss. most of my chat room friends that have edited this page for many months with 100% true facts have been locked out of wiki. I believe this page should be scrapped and deleted. Information regarding the crime along with the co defendants are included in the National Heritage page and non of the co defendants have individual pages. that page also notes about the clemency. Communicating via wiki is hard on me, I don't really know how it works, I'd be happy to discuss each defamation/slanderous issue on the page via email or phone. Thank you for your response. HershyMarton (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • By way of background: Sholam Weiss was the central figure in the looting of National Heritage Life Insurance Company, helping to drain it of $450 million, for which he was indicted on multiple felony counts and put on trial in 1999. While the jury was deliberating, he fled overseas, and he was sentenced in absentia to 845 years in prison, the longest white collar sentence in U.S. history. After a year on the run, during which he lived in splendor utilizing hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the company he looted, Weiss was extradited to the U.S. He has been the subject of a campaign to free him. On Jan. 19 he was one of the persons whose sentences were commuted by President Trump. The commutation was criticized by The Washington Post.
    I think that's a fair summary. These details are taken from the article, which is sourced in large measure to The New York Times, the Best's Review insurance newsletter and to the Orlando Sentinel. If Mr. Marton or his uncle have a problem with those publications, the solution is to contact the publications, not to vandalize the Wikipedia article citing them, blanking content and POV pushing, as has best the article since it was created in 2006. It required a complete rewrite because it was a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ Coretheapple, this is untrue, first the Washington post opinion is just an opinion and shouldn't be on this page. Second, If you read the best review in grave detail you will see that your statement is simply untrue. Mr. Weiss was never convicted for looting any money. he was convicted for laundering. Only his co defendants were convicted for looting, All the talk that relates to him as causing losses was because of the restitution imposed upon him before counting the mortgages he owned under the south star corp which was given to NHLC with a bond and only later sold and satisfied the restitution. This article is filled with defamation. HershyMarton (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also worth to note that the best review magazine is the best source to be used because it was a thorough article by an insurance journal from September 2000, also the satisfaction of restitution from 2016 only proves why my uncle has proclaimed his innocents against theft charges which he was after all never convicted for. HershyMarton (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The authorities said they believed that he had had access to as much as half the $450 million he helped steal and used some of it in flight.

    Officials have begun extradition proceedings to return Mr. Weiss to the United States.

    In a series of extremely complex mortgage and stock frauds, Mr. Weiss and several others looted the National Heritage Life Insurance Company in 1993 and 1994, leading to what the federal authorities called the largest insurance company failure caused by a criminal act in United States history. The company, which largely sold annuities to retirees, is chartered in Delaware, but the majority of its mostly elderly policy holders live in Florida.

    -- Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ Coretheapple There are many other news articles that you can source here, as I stated in this case the most reliable would be the Best Review because they cover insurance financial journalism. there are many facts in this case that this page is just misrepresenting. HershyMarton (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Nomoskedasticity: FYI just before I became aware of the existence of both Weiss and this article, one very long week ago, this noticeboard was utilized for that precise purpose. See [8]. After BrxBrx decided that life was too short to babysit this article, I stumbled onto it and, again, sent up a warning flare on AN , COIN and here. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ Nomoskedasticity I would love to disagree especially because there are too many slanderous points but if that's the case, I'll be happy if we settle by not slandering my uncle with facts that are not true and not post useless stupid opinions, rather only facts. Also, many facts are simply written in a way to deceive and make him look worse for no reason. For example, The paid in full restitution was taken off numerous times by User:Coretheapple just to make my uncle look worse, that screams bias against my uncle. HershyMarton (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not true. The article states that restitution was paid. I added that line. Please do not misrepresent the content of the article and other editors' behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @ Coretheapple I have seen your edits, you first took it off from everywhere, you took it off from the box ontop, It looks like you babysit this article to defame my uncle. You literally rewrote the entire article to make it look worse on my uncle. Im not trying to get into a fight with you here. If there is any way we can get on the phone or discuss this article over the phone, I am open to it.

    I still think that according to wiki policies I read earlier, fits the criteria for the page to be scrapped. HershyMarton (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I still think that if you intend to edit Wikipedia, you need to stop misrepresenting what has happened in your uncle's article and stop the relentless personal attacks. If you continue to waste people's time with attacks and nonsense, you risk being blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HershyMarton: You said I still think that according to wiki policies I read earlier, fits the criteria for the page to be scrapped. Unfortunately none of the editors above agree with you. I also do not think it should be deleted. Please take it easy on the personal attacks as well, as these are not acceptable. Possibly (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:HershyMarton and User:Coretheapple, this kind of discussion - the relative value of sources, etc. - should be done at the article talk page, not at this board. Please take it there. Mr. Marton, some suggestions: take your points one at a time and create a discussion section for that one point. Discuss calmly without throwing around words like “defamation” and “slanderous” and “biased”, and focus on a fact that you dispute. For example, you say he was not convicted for looting any money; that can be proven or disproven. BTW I don’t think you will get very far with a claim that an article in Best’s Review [9] is more reliable than an article in The New York Times. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I must say, I'm completely perplexed by the extent of these whitewashing editors for Sholam Weiss. This has been going on for years, and people are still interested in whitewashing him, against what every reliable source has reported on the subject? Absolutely incredible. At any rate, @HershyMarton:, if you have a problem with what you see as slander, you can try to place suggested edits on the talk page. Requests that are POV-pushing however, are not going to succeed. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 01:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 2 A deletion is also unlikely to succeed, but you can try asking an uninvolved editor to place an afd tag on it, if you think it actually does fit under the deletion policy. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attempt to whitewash your uncles crimes is unlikely to succeed, given the quality of the sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Hawyard

    The article about Anthony Hayward (born 26 October 1959) seems to have been written by the subject himself or by somebody close to him. It contains information of no general interest (e.g. grades awarded for low-level HND certificates in journalism) which can only have come from the subject of the wiki. The list of appearances at small local festivals has similar problems. This does not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria on notability.

    Anthony Hayward — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabbyadams (talk • contribs) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Hayward. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeremy Stoppelman

    I have a WP:COI with Jeremy Stoppelman, the CEO of Yelp. I am writing to inquire about the last paragraph of the "Career" section on that page. That paragraph is about a letter from a disgruntled employee that went viral on social media and was picked up by numerous media outlets. While the letter did make headlines, the Stoppelman page now spends more space on this viral letter than it does on him founding Yelp or taking the company public. The paragraph itself seems to favor the disgruntled employee's POV. It omits source material that describes the article-subject's side in more detail than a general denial and describes the disgruntled employee's allegations as fact.

    I was hoping by posting here an impartial editor might take a look and see what they think. I can take a stab at a shorter rewrite to propose on Talk, but I thought it might be preferred to flag it and see if an impartial editor is willing to look into it. CorporateM (Talk) 01:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The last paragraph in the career section is only five sentences, and is actually shorter than either the paragraph on him founding Yelp or taking the company public. It's barely longer than the quote from him in the "Management style" section. Considering it seems like a pretty neutral description of the dispute and Stoppelman is mentioned repeatedly in the sources about it, I'm not seeing an issue with the content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I reduced the word count of that paragraph by a quarter, while retaining the content. The details are at Talia Jane. Fences&Windows 22:22, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI - This CNN article explains that the letter went viral because Stoppelman responded to it on Twitter, explains Stoppelman's POV, etc. CNN is also probably a better source than some of the borderline stuff on there like Buzzfeed. I kind of roll my eyes at news events about Twitter conversations, but it did get press coverage. Best regards. CorporateM (Talk) 23:05, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how the BBC or The Washington Post (two of the four sources cited in that paragraph) are "borderline stuff". The other two sources are BuzzFeed News and Quartz, which are considered generally reliable at WP:RS. If you think additional sourced information should be added, I think posting on the article's talk page first may be the best move, and then you could point people on this noticeboard to that conversation if you think that additional input would be useful. Regarding the CNN source you cite, the article seems to be mostly describing what the letter said and what Stoppelman tweeted in response ("In the letter, Jane mentioned that Stoppelman frequently posts about increasing homelessness. She said many Yelp employees face similar hard times... On Saturday, Stoppelman addressed the letter on his Twitter (TWTR) account in a series of five posts... He continued by noting that he's 'been focused' on the high cost of living in San Francisco and has backed a group trying to bring awareness to the issue. He also noted that he's often spoken out about the importance of making housing more affordable."). The currently cited sources seem to rely on Twitter conservations far less than that short CNN article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    J. K. Rowling

    Input is requested here: Talk:J. K. Rowling#Transgender views controversy in lead redux. Crossroads -talk- 04:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Andre Comeau

    A new bio, with the usual issues, some puffery and namedropping. A previous version was deleted long ago, and I'm assuming this is more credible and better sourced. More eyes on this will be helpful. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Chad Johnson (television personality)

    Chad Johnson (television personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm bringing this here partly per WP:DOLT. At the time of the legal threat, the sourcing was particularly poor. This has been improved after it made it to ANI, still until I changed it a few minutes ago it still had 'screamed "I hope you fucking die"' in the lead. I just removed any mention of the arrest and later career (it's still in the article) but I'm not sure if this will stick. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure enough, someone reverted me making the bizzare claim the subject was notable for those things, even though they happened in 2020 and the article has existed since 2017, and the criminal charge at least seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Nil. I'm the one who restored that info to the article. I am aware of WP:DOLT but I don't think it applies here because the incidents are well-sourced - this is not an example of someone creating a smear article without reliable sources. Anyway, the account(s) that were constantly removing that sourced info, and recently threatened legal action, were blocked, which seems like WP:DOLT might apply in that sense, but since the information is all true and well-sourced, I think it's a moot point. I also didn't know you posted about it here until I looked at your contributions page; you didn't mention it in your edit summaries or when you posted on my talk page. That would have been helpful I think. Wes sideman (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the information probably does not belong in the lead. Calling it "sourced" is technically correct but Fox News and Daily Mirror aren't the greatest of sources for negative BLP information. I moved the references to the body section where there is already an extensive discussion of the allegations to preserve them but they really are not appropriate to the lead per WP:DUE. As the arrest has not been tested in court it is not worth making it one of the first things that people read here about this person. He was notable for his reality show career before the arrest so that is what the lead should discuss. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the lead in the article is "a summary of its most important contents." Over half of the contents of the body of the article relate to the arrest and porn career. Doing searches of reliable sources reveals the same thing - most of the coverage deals with the subject's arrest, less of it with his porn career, and the smallest amount is the stuff that actually talks about his appearances on reality shows. While it's true that his notability started with reality TV, it seems a big stretch to say that the arrests and the porn career are not significant parts of his notability now, given the evidence. Wes sideman (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is not MOS, but WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. This is policy that trumps the MOS. Johnson is a public figure so mention of this accusation is allowed but that does not mean that it belongs in the lead. The if/then above is also somewhat backwards. If half of the contents of the body (although that proportion is not, in actual fact, correct) are about accusations, then reducing the contents is the answer, not adding it to the lead. The most salacious parts of that section are not directly sourced and probably should be removed, for example. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't just look at policy one bit at a time. I often tell people you have to look at it all at once, like one, giant equation. For information to be included, every factor in that equation must be satisfied in order to comply with BLP.
    First is sourcing. Regardless of who is regurgitating the stories, the story about the alleged domestic abuse (notice I say "alleged" because nothing has been proven in court, and BLP rules apply to talk pages as well; even the sources are very careful in this respect), the alleged abuse was in reality reported by TMZ and Toofab. TMZ is definitely not a reliable source, and Toofab looks mighty questionable, and the reviews are not so good either. These other sources are just repeating what TMZ and Toofab said, and are very careful to state that, so that the reader will know how reliable the info is, and who to blame if it's wrong.
    So, already we've failed RS. Then we have way too much space devoted to this per the rest of the article, which fails DUE. We're supposed to give a summary, not the whole, detailed story, and we need to weigh the sourcing (all originally sourced material in proportion to all original sources about this info), and put it into its proper percentage. Then, the lede is just a very quick summary of all the main points in the article, in their proper proportion. (I like to think of the lede as simple a scaled-down model of the article. For a good example of how a lede should summarize the body, see Honey).
    Then you have WP:BLPCRIME to consider. I'm not sure this falls under the exemption to that, WP:WELLKNOWN because there just isn't a lot of independent coverage out there on this story, not like there would be for, say ... Charlie Sheen. To pass WELLKNOWN, there needs to be significant, independent coverage to the point that there is no longer any point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. (And before people cry "celebrity", as far as famous people named Chad Johnson go, a quick google search shows he's at the bottom of that list, below the football layer, soccer player, etc., and the lame sourcing in our very short article also seems to confirm that.)
    Oh, and on top of that, naming the alleged victim is also not cool, especially when that person is not notable enough to have an article of their own. So, all in all, unless some better sourcing comes along besides TMZ and Toofab, and a lot of it, I would opt to just leave it out of the article entirely. Zaereth (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think Wes sideman is missing one VERY important part of writing Wikipedia articles. Information which has a reference is available to be put into Wikipedia articles, however it is not required to be in Wikipedia articles. Which is to say, that before you put anything in an article, you must source it, but, and I cannot stress this enough, merely because something is mentioned in a reliable source, this does not mean that the article MUST have it. In order to decide if a particular reliably sourced fact should or should not be mentioned in an article, and if it should, where and with how much prominence and in what phrasing and all sorts of other decisions still need to be made by Wikipedia editors making editorial decisions and when they disagree, to use consensus building to solve the disagreement. In this case, no one is objecting to the information because it lacks sources; your assertion that it has sources is at once both true and mostly irrelevant to the reason people want to remove it. Instead, things like WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPCRIME, and a variety of other editorial concerns have been raised that you have failed to address. Build consensus that it is relevant enough to his biography to include in the article first before re-adding it. --Jayron32 20:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything you said, except that I do think it lacks reliable sources. The reliability of a sources depends greatly on the info it's giving, and when they all say, "according to TMZ", then I have to question the reliability regardless of whether it's Fox News, People Magazine, or The NY Times. If they don't want to own it, then we shouldn't either. But I think BLPCRIME is the dominant issue here. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the consensus of experienced editors here I have reduced the arrest section to the essentials that I feel are barely supportable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wes sideman, I have once again reverted your attempts to add these allegations. You have already been informed that TMZ is not an acceptable WP:RS for salacious allegations of criminal activity. Your "I didn't hear that" attempt to re-add this is verging on tendentious editing. Please do not attempt to add anything to this section again. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eggishorn Is cheatsheet.com a reliable source? Wes sideman (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    NO. How do I make this clear? You have demonstrated that you are determined to insert information that multiple experienced editors, including an administrator, have told you is not allowed by policy. You should not be trying to find an acceptable source for this information to justify its inclusion. You should be leaving the article alone for the time being. Pursuing this course of action is likely to end in frustration or worse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Eggishorn I'm just asking the question. I don't intend to add anything else to the article without permission. If cheatsheet.com is not a reliable source, why is used as a reference on the pages of over 100 articles, including many biographies? (Robert Downey Jr., Kid Cudi, Jimmie Johnson are just a few examples) I don't know why you're yelling in all caps; this does not seem like it merits the level of anger I'm perceiving from you. Wes sideman (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and please do not mistake a single-letter typo for shouting. If you are perceiving anger, it was not intended to be implied. I have a sticky shift key I sometimes miss correcting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, no problem. However, I should also explain, and should've explained in the beginning, that what I added in the first place was because I noticed in the article history that the info about the arrest and porn career were there at some point, and was removed without explanation. I pretty much restored it and found what I thought was better sourcing. Then this guy started making a dozen sock accounts and threatening me on my talk page and making legal threats. He's still doing at this very minute. Wes sideman (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Socks placed back in drawer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think others have explained things well enough so I won't comment on most of it. I'll just say that while I understand how wrong it is that you're being inappropriately targeted over your work in the article, and it very frustrating when someone with a likely COI edits inappropriately, the proper outcome is always that we ensure the article is as it would be if we paid proper attention to it and put aside the inappropriate editing. Also about "alleged", please remember that this is not over general actions but over specific allegations of criminality. For example, if there's a video of a woman shooting her boyfriend in the chest, does this mean there's no doubt she's a murderer? Well no, maybe he asked her to since they were shooting a Youtube video trying to demonstrate using an encyclopaedia to stop a bullet and she's only guilty of manslaughter. Likewise, even if you find someone holding a gun standing over a dead body with a bullet wound in it, this doesn't mean the person is going to be convicted of murder. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Dame Glenys Stacey

    As from 1st February 2021 Dame Glenys became the Chair Designate of the Office for Environmental Protection. She ceased being interim Chief Regulator at Ofqual on 31 December 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:B095:9101:E831:3B5D:917F:EBBD (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the update. I've often wondered what's going on in the life of Dame Glenys Stacey. (Not.) Please convey our warmest congratulations. If you'd like the article changed, then all we need to do is wait for it to be published in a reliable source. Zaereth (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Fences&Windows 22:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Lissack

    We have a SPA IP account inserting critical material onto the above article. It looks like a BLP violation to me but Lissack is known to me so would someone else please take a look at it - thanks -----Snowded TALK 20:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well sourced information removed on BLP grounds

    Volunteer Marek removed this text from the Bogdan Musiał article[10] 

    Historian Andrzej Żbikowski [pl] compares Musial to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, considering that both have "equally strongly polonocentric and apologetic stances".[1]

    He is claiming that it violates BLP, but giving no explanation in light of the fact that it's sourced to a scholarly source. Is this concern valid? My understanding is that BLP does not give us a license to remove well-sourced negative information or whitewash article subjects. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ Żbikowski, Andrzej (2019). "The Dispute over the Status of a Witness to the Holocaust: Some Observations on How Research into the Destruction of the Polish Jews and into Polish–Jewish Relations during the Years of Nazi Occupation Has Changed since 1989". New Directions in the History of the Jews in the Polish Lands. Academic Studies Press. p. 412. ISBN 978-83-949149-1-2.
    • Given the claim being made, the sourcing needs to be very good, especially if someone else has challenged the content. The actual source seems to make a single reference to Musiał, comparing one of his books to Chodakiewicz: "However, in an article in English in a post-conference report from Ludwigsburg he [Marek Wierzbicki] was far more cautious in generalizing about the extent of such collaboration in Jewish communities. More cautious, in any event than Bogdan Musiał—the author of Rozstrzełać elementy kontrewolucyjne! This book could easily have appeared in the Fronda Library alongside Chodakiewicz's work for its equally strongly polonocentric and apologetic stances." The wording you present above does not seem accurate, and I'm not sure that type of single mention is particularly useful to make any contentious claims in a BLP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ran Avni

    the metadata photo when you share this article on an iphone has a photo that is not Ran Avni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfinston (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry to give you the run around, but this is not our fault. Our article doesn't have a picture. We get these complaints a lot, because certain providers (such as google is notorious for this) they try to anticipate what you want based on past search history, and just inserts whatever pic it can find that even remotely fits what it "thinks" you want. You have to talk to whoever provides your sharing services, because it didn't come from us. Zaereth (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyler Mitchel

    Photographer Roger Erickson photographed the cover of Vogue(Mexico), with Lily Aldridge, published March of 2003. He is also African American. In order to avoid misleading the public, please clarify which country the Vogue cover was shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82E0:C2D0:A1D4:8227:238E:71F2 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vicky Ford

    Vicky Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi there

    A single user (AugustB1914) is making repeated edits to this page which are not objective, convey no new useful information and appear politically motivated.

    Rather than repeated corrections or deletions it would be much preferable to ask them to stop

    Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFixed (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @MrFixed:, you should let another editor like AugustB1914 know when you mention them on a noticeboard such as this. This is as easy as using a template to "ping" them when you post like this: {{u|AugustB1914}}. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Josh Grelle

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

    FixerOfAllThings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly changing the pronouns used for Grelle to he/him ([11][12][13][14]) in violation of MOS:GENDERID, as Grelle's most recent self-designated pronouns are they/them. (Their pronouns used to be stated in their Twitter bio, as can be seen next to this archived tweet, but they removed the pronouns from their Twitter bio at some point in January (current bio). However, in the absence of any further updates or statements from Grelle, they/them pronouns are Grelle's most recent self-designated pronouns.) I've informed FixerOfAllThings that Grelle uses they/them pronouns (I also added the appropriate banner to the talk page) and warned them about edit warring, but this does not seem to have deterred them. As I've already reverted them three times, I'm reporting them here instead of continuing to revert them as recommended by WP:3RRBLP. GreenComputer (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the best source for "they/them" (which doesn't strike me as a gender pronoun at all, it's just a plural pronoun) then I wouldn't call that definitive. All I see in that archived Twitter page is a one-line header that doesn't even make sense if they/them was changed to "he" or "she". Sorry, I don't see anything giving a definite context that Grelle self-refers as a plural pronoun. It isn't even clear that Grelle has ever made any point at all about gender identity.
    Furthermore, MOS:GENDERID explicitly refers to the guideline WP:SURPRISE, which recommends against surprising the reader with an unexpected and grammatically incorrect pronoun in the lead paragraph.
    I don't see that pronouns are necessary in such a short article that consists of just a handful of sentences. I removed the pronouns. They aren't needed. If Grelle no longer self-refers with any pronouns at all, then perhaps neither should we. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

    Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi. A user is adding that Israel is behind this guys killing. At this moment, this is alleged and Israel has not admitted responsibility. When I asked the user to provide a source he provided a youtube video from PM Netanyahu's YT account discussing this guy a few years back. I explained onmy talk page that this source, while reliable is not independnet. Can soemone revert as I do not want to accidentally go over three reverts? Thanks Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Zvikorn:, the repeated addition of "without evidence" is not in compliance with MOS:LEAD and WP:CCPOL. Its use in the lead is editorializing and Pro translator was correct in removing it. That Iran has accused Israel is very well-sourced in the article body and there is no source presented in the body that claims that Iran has no basis for making the accusation. Please do not continue edit warring to add this. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    GameStop short squeeze / Janet Yellen

    GameStop short squeeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    A user has inserted some content at GameStop short squeeze that has BLP implications for Janet Yellen. I have removed the content on the grounds on BLP and other grounds, specifically that (1) it is not directly supported by the cited sources; (2) some of the sourcing proposed is subpar or speculative; and (3) the content is off-topic and undue weight in the article. Some users have been pushing to re-insert the challenged content. It would be helpful to get some additional eyeballs on this. See Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze#Yellen. Neutralitytalk 17:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree that it's speculative material about a BLP which doesn't belong in the article. Not sure if it's quite a BLP violation, more that it's irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the "reporters raising concern" text was, at best, poorly worded. The subject may be worth including, possibly. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the dispute, along with AllegedlyHuman and a few other. In summary, there has been widespread media coverage suggesting that (my wording:) Janet Yellen may be in a position of conflict of interest with respect to Citadel LLC (see below for the sources). It has even made its way to the White House press briefing (at 18:25). The language that I have suggested to summarize the issue is this. But I don't really care for that particular phrasing. The issue is that—in opposition to the near-unanimous talk page consensus—Neutrality refuses to let any of us add anything at all that would summarize in any way, shape or form, the current coverage of Janet Yellen's links with Citadel. I have asked Neutrality if he could suggest a phrasing that would suit his interpretation of the policies, but he refuses to do so. This is a critical problem for an ITN article with 20'000+ page views per day.

    Sources:

    --JBchrch (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's be real clear here:
    • Main Reuters article - sole mention of "conflict of interest" is the following statement: "Richard Painter, a former top ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush, said many Treasury secretaries had a great deal more entanglements that would raise conflict of interest concerns than Yellen."
    • Second Reuters article - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
    • Washington Post - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
    • Fox News - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere. Fox News is also a yellow-flagged source for political matters.
    • Slate - Commentary piece. Does not say that Yellen has a conflict of interest. References "conflict of interest" in the context of a vague statement that "no one can know for sure what's in a decision-maker's heart as they make decisions."
    • Bloomberg - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
    • Yahoo!News - actually a Reuters article. Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
    • The Federalist - not a reliable source; right-wing commentary piece
    No RS suggests that Yellen has taken any step relating to GameStop and Citadel specifically. We do not put speculative BLP-implicating innuendo into an encyclopedia article, especially not when it is undue weight, not supported by the sources, or off-topic. Neutralitytalk 21:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Skimmed a couple of those sources, concur with the above assessment. This looks like source misrepresentation / WP:REFBOMBING. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So I am going to ask you once again : what is the edit that you suggest? I am not insisting on the word "conflict of interest", as I have stated in my first comment here. ProcrastinatingReader, please note that Neutrality opposes all additions RE Yellen/Citadel, not just the ones mentioning "conflict of interest". I am forced to engage in borderline copyright infringement here, but let's go ahead and read what the sources say :
    Reuters 1: A sticking point for her to clear, though, may be $700,000 in speaking fees she accepted from Citadel, as recently as last fall. Yellen has pledged not to involve herself in an official capacity in matters involving the firm without first seeking a written waiver from Treasury ethics officials.
    [...]
    Yellen filed an ethics agreement here with the Office of Government Ethics in December saying she would "seek written authorization to participate personally and substantially in any particular matter" related to any companies that paid her speaking fees prior to joining President Joe Biden's administration - for a year after her last speech to each firm.
    Reuters 2: Yellen sought and received permission from ethics lawyers before calling the meeting, according to a document seen by Reuters, along with clearance to engage on wide-ranging issues in the financial services industry.
    Yellen's decision to seek the waiver followed a report here by Reuters that because of speaking fees she was paid by a key player in the GameStop saga, hedge fund Citadel LLC, she may need permission to deal with matters involving the firm.
    [...]
    Yellen earned more than $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel, as recently as last fall. In an ethics agreement here, she pledged not to involve herself in specific matters involving the firm - as well as major banks including Citigroup, Barclays and Goldman Sachs - without first seeking authorization.
    Washington Post: White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki dismissed questions over whether Yellen should recuse herself from the matter over speaking fees she received from Citadel. The hedge fund’s owner has another company, Citadel Securities, which has a financial relationship with Robinhood, a retail broker which was criticized after it recently restricted trading in the shares of GameStock and other companies that were promoted by the Reddit message board.
    Bloomberg: Yellen has requested an ethics waiver to hold the meeting, a Treasury spokeswoman said, confirming a Reuters report. Yellen received more than $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel, the financial empire run by billionaire Ken Griffin. Griffin runs a hedge fund and controls Citadel Securities, a giant market making firm that executes trades for Robinhood’s customers.
    --JBchrch (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The ethics concern/issue can be mentioned due to those sources as they are WP:DUE. You should call for an WP:RfC on the article talk page in terms of a proposed phrasing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for this suggestion.--JBchrch (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For all purposes, this should be read in the context of BLPCRIME and in the context of NOT#NEWS: the implication of the connection between Yellen and Citadel appears to assigning potentially criminal liability on Yellen from these sources, which we cannot do absent an actual conviction or arrest for that conviction. It may be important as lawyers untangle if there is any liability here, and if it is found that the Yellen/Citadel connection has legal ramifications, then and only then can it be added. Everything else is wide speculation. --Masem (t) 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of Treasury, is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And even with public figures, we don't attempt to state they committed any crime unless there are serious allegations towards that in play (eg speaking towards Trump's second impeachment ahead of anything would be reasonable since lawmakers were moving to take action). Here, this is analysts speculation on what might come down. --Masem (t) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No one's arguing that this is a crime. The sources established she received over 800,000 in speaking fees from Capital and she had to get an ethics waiver to even meet about the Gamestop situation.[15] Those two things should be mentioned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Jay Mathews

    I am the subject of the article. I don't know who posted it 14 years ago but I am grateful. I just posted on the talk section of the article a request for specific updating and small corrections. I tried to create an account but could not figure out how to do that.--jay mathews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.53.206 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, on behalf of whoever created it, you're welcome. Thank you very much for asking here and on the talk page rather than trying to edit the article yourself, per our WP:Conflict of interest policy. As someone who works in journalism, I'm sure you understand the need for reliable sources, and that's what we need at Wikipedia as well before we can make any changes or updates. We only summarize what has already been written. As the subject of the article, I'm sure you are probably the most familiar with what has been written about you, so here's what I suggest: read our WP:Reliable source policy and then gather up as many sources as you can and post them at the talk page of the article. Using only the info found in those sources, make another list of things you'd like changed or added. (It's unlikely sourced info will be deleted without good reason, but we can always change "he does this..." to "he did this, now does that..." or some such thing.) Just keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article and not a facebook page. It's a lot like journalism only a lot more formal. Zaereth (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Proud Boys and political protest type articles in general

    The discussion stems around whether to include the names of individual arrestee roster in the article Proud Boys simply because they appeared in a list of so and so were arrested/charged at so and so protest/incident prior to conviction. I argued against it, but an editor in favor of inclusion argues "seriously consider not including" does not mean do not include". The only thing credible is the fact arrests of those individuals were made, but as far as I know, including those names prior to conviction is discouraged and not included without compelling reason to include them regardless of which political group these arrests are attributed to. Graywalls (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are the policies to consider here. Is there any loss of context if the members are not individually named? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe not naming them really affects the context. As far as I see it, there's no hurry to rattle off names. That can wait until there's a conviction or it could be talked about in more general terms. Graywalls (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ONUS, those wishing to include should gain consensus to do so. See also WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps as a non-involved editor to this point, you could have a look at the discussion Talk:Proud_Boys#arrestee_rosters Graywalls (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have concerns about including the names of those arrested for crimes related to a major event simply because they are associated with a particular organization. I think that WP:BLPCRIME means we have to consider individuals on a case-by-case basis when it comes to allegations of a crime, especially for non-public figures who have not yet been convicted. I also left a comment on the article's talk page with my perspective. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Israel Finkelstein

    I started a topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP violations at Talk:David but no admin has answered my question: does calling Israel Finkelstein "insane" and "incompetent" at Talk:David amount to a WP:BLP violation? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Graywalls: You have just edited WP:BLPN and Israel Finkelstein (separately). May I ask you to chime in? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Given the context, colourful or hyperbolic opinions about a source's reliability in discussions should be given leeway if they are not defamatory per WP:BLPTALK and opinions are not defamatory. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is calling a very famous (in his field) professor emeritus insane/incompetent not defamatory? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Or do you mean such opinions are relevant to content choice? Doug Weller talk 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Both. Opinions are not defamatory. Dismissive opinions about the professor's analysis or expertise are relevant to content choice in assigning weight. Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The comments would certainly not be defamatory in a legal sense. Based on the ANI thread, the comments also appear to not be about Finklestein himself but instead about his analysis/reasoning. I don't think the language is helpful, but Tgeorgescu making allegations against the other editor without evidence is more concerning to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wallyfromdilbert: As I said there, I no longer pursued the paid editing accusation after they have denied making paid edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Lou Dobbs

    The entire article is rife with biased opinions and material from biased sources presented as fact.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1005203081"