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.

Kia Labeija

Kia LaBeija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)

Susan Athey

Resolved

 – Fixed. In the future, feel free to edit yourself! BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

This piece gives her birthdate as 11/29/1970 and states that she “attended Duke University beginning at the age of 16 in 1991”. I don’t see how both can be true.

Paul Wolfson Research Fellow, Tuck School of Business

paulw AT dartmouth.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.238.235 (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

TVRI

Resolved

 – Found a better source to support statement; article is now accurate (DanishtD's concern) and doesn't violate BLP (Tide rolls's concern) BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at User talk:DanishtD#Re;1. I've pretty much exhausted my assets and have not convinced the other editor. It's possible that's because I'm wrong. Also could be cultural thing. Either way I'm requesting more eyes and help with the communication. Thanks. Tiderolls 14:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I've commented there. You're right that the claim wasn't sufficiently supported by that source, but, in fairness, DanishtD is correct that the person was actually arrested (and convicted) - I've found a better source for that, adding it to the article. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, BubbaJoe123456. Tiderolls 14:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Our Lady of Medjugorje

I apologize for the length but it is all necessary to be able to see the problem. Disputed reference Ogledalo pravde [Mirror of Justice] (in Croatian) published by Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated by Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar. (see the full details on the talk page [[1]]) This source is not a reliable source and is a POV primary source on a controversial page. Using this as one of the guidelines WP:BLPPUBLIC: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."

(1) Not Independent from the subject - Dražen Kutleša is the editor who prepared the book for Bishop Peric who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions.(See the last paragraph on this page beginning with Drazen Kutlesa) Here is the pdf [[2]]
Google translated from title page: MIRROR JUSTICE, Episcopal Ordinariate in Mostar, about alleged apparitions and messages, in Medjugorje, Prepared by Don Drazen, Mostar, 2001.

(2) Not the author but the editorDrazen Kuktlesa wrote WORD OF THE EDITOR on page 9 and the beginning paragraph google translated: "By order of the local bishop, Msgr. Ratko Perić I collect and computer-prepare various statements, announcements, comments and studies related to the Medjugorje phenomena, which is signed by any officer of the Ordinariate in the past period."

(3) Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric both oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions and had negative WP:POV's on the subject see link [[3]] from 1993 until his retirement in 2020. He took over from Bishop Pavao Zanic who oversaw Medjugorje during the apparitions from the beginning in 1981 to his retirement in 1993. Both Bishop Zanic and Bishop Peric are not independent but were directly involved in the controversy of Medjugorje and had POV's about the subject.

(4) Bishop Peric wrote the forward (page 11) and conclusion (page 313-314) to this pdf.

(5) Self published - the publishing is directly under Bishop Peric's direction. It was printed by Izdavač: Biskupski ordinarijat Mostar translated to Publisher: Bishop's Ordinariate Mostar directly under Bishop Peric. "The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno is the head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, who is responsible for looking after its spiritual and administrative needs".List_of_Roman_Catholic_bishops_of_Mostar-Duvno

(6) Collection of primary sources WP:PSTS It is a compilation of interviews and statements including from the previous Bishop Zanic. That makes it a collection of primary sources as per WP:PSTS.See in the pdf on page 3 the list of names [[4]]

(7) This unreliable, primary source is on six other pages that are related to Our Lady of Medjugorje and at least three are still living: Our Lady of Medjugorje, Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbarić, Tomislav Vlašić, Pavol Hnilica, Pavao Žanić.

(8) There are many living persons within this article: The visionaries: Ivan Dragićević, Ivanka Ivanković, Jakov Čolo, Marija Pavlović, Mirjana Dragićević, Vicka Ivanković and Jelena Vasilj. The clergy: Jozo Zovko, Slavko Barbaric, Tomislav Vlasic, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivan Prusina, Fr. Ivica Vego. And etc...

(9) It should not be used on this page or any other page related to Medjugorje which is a controversial subject.[[5]]

(10) Governor Sheng has already placed Ogledalo pravde on RSN with no response [[6]]

(11) Governor Sheng also placed the reference for this article on the RSN. "An article on Tomislav Vlašić and the reliability of the sources used. [[7]] The expert editor Slp1 that was working with us on the Our Lady Of Medjugorje page answered the request and here it is: "As you know, Governor Sheng, I have taken a stricter line with some of these on Our Lady of Medjugorje because not only are they not independent, but some are basically self published AND directly involved in the controversies surrounding Medjugorje.(e.g Peric, Bulat, Dražen Kutleša, Laurentin ). For a WP:BLP, you should use the highest quality independent sources available, and there are lots and lots available for this man. There is little need for some of these, which basically boil down to being primary sources in the events of this man's life." Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 14 February 2021 Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC) Signing - forgot to sign.

You seem to be suggesting that there are sourcing problems in regard to an article on purported visions of the Virgin Mary. There may very well be, but I'm having difficulty understanding where WP:BLP policy comes into this. Could you clarify which specific content (or proposed content) in the article you think violates the policy, and why? AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes - but they are all through the page. Were you able to read my whole statement? I list all the living persons affected. Let's start with one or two to begin. The references in the two paragraphs I am going to direct you to, both authors are not independent from the apparitions. I mention Kutlesa in detail in my presentation and Zovko was a member of the commission that reviewed the apparitions created by the Bishop. Both are coming from a POV place. Please go to this section [[8]] and then go to the paragraphs On 15 January 1982 and On 21 June 1983. It is all written from these two sources. Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Then go to this section [[9]] As you scroll down and check the references you will see Kutlesa, Zovko and Zanic. Zanic was not independent and was the Bishop when the visions first began and for a number of years. (1) Controversial statements are made throughout (2) and there are no secondary or third party sources to back them up.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

These references are used through the page by these sources that are not independent, Bishop Peric (Kutlesa editor for Peric) of Medjugorje, Bishop Zanic of Medjugorje and both Zovko and Bulat who were on the Church commission regarding whether the visions are real. They are all primary sources that have POV regarding the seers.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Does this help? Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really. Please quote the exact text in the article that you think has WP:BLP issues, and explain why you think so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

There is so much to report on this page but we can go through the whole page if you wish. Here is one paragraph with two primary sources as the only references on a controversial subject. Ivan is a livingn person and being accused here. "On 21 June 1983, one of the seers, Ivan Dragičević, sent a threatening message allegedly from the Madonna to the bishop, in which she requests the bishop's conversion regarding her apparitions, otherwise, he would be "judged by me and my son Jesus.” On 6 February 1985, Ivan Dragičević sent somewhat more tolerant message from the Madonna, with her stating that if he doesn't believe in her apparitions, at least he shouldn't persecute her priests who believe in her messages and promote them.”

Another one dealing with a controversy but only using primary sources with no secondary or third party references to back it up. Kutlesa was the editor for Bishop Perics book and Zovkic was part of the commission that is against the visions. It could have been made up: "On 15 January 1982, the bishop invited the alleged seers to his residence to ask them if there were any messages from the Madonna on the issue, and they replied that there were not. However, on 3 April 1982, the seers came to the bishop to tell him that the Madonna scolded them for not telling the truth and that she requested that the two friars remain in Mostar and continue to celebrate mass and hear confessions. The Madonna allegedly told Vicka that Fr. Ivan Prusina and Fr. Ivica Vego "are not guilty of anything" in the matter. Tomislav Vlašić took responsibility for the lies of the seers telling the bishop he instructed them not to tell the truth because the bishop might dispute the authenticity of the apparitions.

And more - the editor is using primary sources to accuse Archbishop Franic, visionary Vicka & Ivan (both living) of wrong doing again without a secondary source to back it up - "The Archbishop of Split-Makarska Frane Franić, who supported the alleged apparitions from the beginning, tried to persuade Vicka to retract the messages about the two friars, so the authenticity of the apparitions could be defended more easily. However, both Vicka and Ivan continued to claim that the messages regarding the two friars were from the Madonna."

"The messages included the accusations against Bishop Pavao Žanić and encouragement for the two friars not to leave the parish. It was then when Bishop Pavao took his final negative stance on the alleged apparitions."

"The whole of that time, the Bishop remained cautious towards the apparitions, without any final conclusion. He became skeptical towards the apparitions after the apparition accused him of the disorder in Herzegovina that existed between the Franciscans and the diocesan clergy and defended the two Franciscans who refused to leave their parishes as requested by the Papal decree Romanis Pontificibus."

Is this all helping you to understand? Red Rose 13 (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't see any notification on the article talk page that this discussion is taking place here. There should be, since others involved in the dispute are clearly entitled to offer their input too. Not least because if there are problems with the independence of the sources you cite, the same can be said about many of the other sources too. I can certainly see some logic in your suggestions that because for instance Kutleša and Zovkić were involved in the debate over the credibility of the claims by the 'seers', they aren't independent sources, but I'd have to also suggest that since the entire affair depends on statements made by the people involved, starting with the 'visions', there really wouldn't be much of an article left if such material were to be excluded. Which might possibly be a good thing, given how bloated the article currently is. From a look at the talk page, there seems to be an ongoing faction-fight over content, and I don't think that it is likely to be resolved by crying 'WP:BLP' over a couple of citations, without looking into the more general issues raised. As for the specific material quoted above, maybe the answer is to include at least some of it, but with clear attribution: "According to Dražen Kutleša, in June June 1983, one of the seers, Ivan Dragičević, sent a threatening message allegedly from the Madonna to the bishop...", and so on. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the page is bloated and we had an expert editor help us trim it waaay down and she took out all the sources that were primary in the process including some I proposed. It is on her sandbox page right now but then she quit saying it was too much for her to continue on. I feel it is important to protect the living people on this page and all related pages and they are not right now! I only gave you a couple of paragraphs but these primary sources are peppered all over this controversial page. Just take a look at the footnote section at zanic, kutlesa, bulat and peric. I don't think it is a good idea to have primary sources, without secondary sources backing it up, used on a controversial page at all let alone with living people. I believe that is what Wikipedia guidelines are saying. Is that true? How would you like to be discussed on a Wikipedia page where the editors are using primary sources of people who are against you? I am losing faith in Wikipedia that there is no way to protect these people!!Red Rose 13 (talk) 01:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As I see this, it's a problem with referencing article, which is not a BLP but rather a religious phenomenon, with proper mainstream neutral sources. This issue should be opened at reliable sources noticeboard, or even better, somewhere between Neutral point of view noticeboard and No original research noticeboard (maybe even Fringe theories noticeboard)!?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your input but there are numerous living persons discussed on this page including the 6 visionaries and the clergy involved. It is definitely falls under LP guidelines.Red Rose 13 (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

But what? The article is very, very difficult to read through. I'd equate it to reading an academic paper from the nuclear-physics department, where a person needs a lot of background information in order to follow along through all the jargon. Parts of it seem like they were translated by google (for example, what is a "security apparatus"? Sounds like some kind of menacing robot). Mostly, however, it's way too much detail; basically telling this in a story format in a very "timeline of events" way. What it needs is to be a summary of the events and of the expert analyses thereafter. That's the big difference between encyclopedic and academic writing.

Likewise, and I mean no offense by this, your complaint here is very difficult to read through to try and parse together what the problem is. I'm guessing this all has to do with one source, and whether that source constitutes a primary source or not. If it's the PFD you linked, then it becomes a problem, because I can't read Croatian and google doesn't seem to be able to translate it either. I'm not sure what horrible thing in the article it's supposed to support, and the article's history gives no enlightenment except there's been a long-standing edit war going on there over many things for quite some time. But here's where you need someone fluent in both languages to make an assessment of the source in question. That may be a good question for RSN to answer, because that's what they specialize in over there, but for it to be a BLP violation we'd need to know just what the violating thing is, and for that I'm having trouble connecting the dots.

One thing that might help is: try summarizing the problem, as you see it, here again. Imagine you have a 100 word limit (or whatever), and just give us the gist. What is the offending text? The offending source? And how does it constitute a BLP violation? Zaereth (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Lisa Wilkinson

I was looking at Lisa Wilkinson page and see that the last 3 edits are all removal of a line and reversion of said edit. It is curious why editors are so interested in removing/restoring the line, and it has me wondering about what is/isn't ok across the board as a source. Given this, should I put this on a different noticeboard or it relevant to BLP? Anyhow, the line is about her hosting some business awards and using the said same business awards site as the source. Is this a violation of WP:RSSELF or is it fine? And if it is fine, it's because in this instance it's objective and factual? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can understand, editors removed the mention because the citation doesn't directly verify the line. However, it is also not clear why the mention of the hosting is WP:DUE without independent reliable sources reporting on this; which is why I removed it again. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough Morbidthoughts - I don't have any skin in the game so aren't fussed either way. Just so I know for the future, is this the right noticeboard to bring up such issues? MaskedSinger (talk) 09:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

The entry in question was removed by three different IPs, for each their only Wikipedia edit, with the edit summaries: 1. "removing material that is unsourced. the reference has nothing to do with the statement."; 2. "Where is the valid source>"; 3. none. I restored that entry with a valid reference from the institution in question, although due to their weird HTML structure, inspection of the source requires additional navigation on their website, and that's why I provided a verbatim quote. How a single sentence can be seen as UNDUE stretches the intent of WP:UNDUE improperly. Further, WP:RSSELF does not preclude using the organizer of an event reporting on the identity of their host as a source. I suggest User:Morbidthoughts revert their removal (which also introduced 2 unrelated errors). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 09:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Users cannot verify the quote without the direct link. I still can't figure out how to navigate to it. I read UNDUE in a strict BLP manner to mean that if there is no independent reliable coverage of this 4X hosting , there shouldn't be any mention of it even if the hosting did happen. RSSELF also states "Never use self-published sources as independent sources about living people". Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is how I cited the source for the event:

• "Events Timeline: The 2005 Ethnic Business Awards". Ethnic Business Awards. Retrieved 17 October 2021. The 17^th edition of the Ethnic Business Awards marked the first of four consecutive years in which acclaimed television presenter Lisa Wilkinson hosted the ceremony.

The |title= of the citation explains how to find the relevant text. A reader can verify the quote by clicking on the timeline at the top of the page until it scrolls to "2005" and "The 2005 Ethnic Business Awards" appears. The text containing the quote is then visible. WP:V makes allowances for sources that are difficult to access. The invocation of RSSELF is misguided because it isn't Wilkinson publishing, but the organizer; extending RSSELF in this way would prevent e.g. using the AMPAS or Nobel Committee websites as a source. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You originally cited RSSELF. I'm pointing out what it says on its face. Just because others cite directly to the Academy or Nobel site when there is ample secondary RS that covers the award does not mean it can be done here, especially when there is a lack of secondary RS here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I didn't cite RSSELF, User:MaskedSinger did. I rejected its applicability, as I do for the mostly misused OTHERSTUFF. RSSELF applies to material published by the subject. Your reading makes it apply to everything published, because everything is published by some self. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Your "subject" argument conflates RSSELF with WP:SELFSOURCE. Reliable sources are independent published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. "The more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." (WP:RSCONTEXT) EBA is not a source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to be assigning any weight to what it publishes on its site about living people. If that is more of a WP:QUESTIONED argument, so be it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MaskedSinger argued that using the organization's website as a source violates WP:RSSELF. That section of the guideline ("Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. ...") does not apply to an organization reporting on its events. E.g. the list of nominations and winners at the AMPAS website is authoritative. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Bednarek to be exact, I didn't argue anything. I was simply asking a question. If you could please stick to the facts. As I've written below, everything about the Ethnic Business Awards being on Wikipedia is suspicious and this is a far bigger issue than RSSELF and who hosted the awards. A SPI should be opened to look into it further. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

After bringing this up and following the discussion, I was curious to see, who actually added the Awards hosting to her page in the first place? It was Dbmn12345 a user whose only edits pertain to Ethnic Business Awards.Looking at the edit history of the Awards page, I see a number of editors who also edited Joseph Assaf the founder of these said same awards. Both pages were created by Crazedmongoose Could all these editors editing both pages be sock puppets? Possibly. Is this ‎the wrong place to bring this up? Most likely. But given we already have thread, I felt I'd start here. Morbidthoughts what are your thoughts? What do you suggest we do with this information? It is worth acting on? If so, where is the best board to post about this? MaskedSinger (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

You're shifting the goalposts. This has nothing to do with the original misguided concern about WP:RSSELF or indeed Wilkinson. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 23:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

You're right this has nothing to do with BLP, but it began as such - with my curiosity as to why there is so much passion to include mention of hosting an awards night that no one has ever heard of. Everything to do with the Ethnic Business Awards page and its presence on Wikipedia is suspicious. It is not notable and putting everything to do with the specific case here to the side, you should share my concerns. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the content does not seem due without independent sourcing. Wikipedia is not the place to post every activity as if the article is a resume or CV. The primary source also doesn't provide any additional context about what the "hosting" was or if it was a significant or noteworthy part of the ceremonies, and I also have concerns about using self-published sources for BLPs. However, it looks like most of the concerns expressed here would probably be better addressed at the article's talk page or at WP:COIN if there continues to be a concern about edits made in the future. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Minion

Joseph Minion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this article on author Joseph Minion some outlandish claims (allegations, really) of plagiarism have found its way into the text, and they are based on the following sources, which I find extremely inadequate:

1. unsigned article on Gawker, website generally deemed unreliable in our project;
2. Andrew Hearst on his blog starts his polemics with: "(t)he bare details have been mentioned online, but only in passing, and as far as I know the scandal has never been officially reported anywhere";
3. self-published website spool.net, with article signed by Peter Sobczynski who base (and links) his mention on allegations put forward by Andrew Hearst at his blog, mostly recycling hearsay, as A.Hearst himself admittedly explains at the beginning of his own text in a manner we can read in bold quote from above;
4. Salon article does not say anything on the case;
5. book "Lost Souls of Horror and the Gothic: Fifty-Four Neglected Authors, Actors, Artists and Others.", chapter: "Joseph Minion", by Toles, George (2016). (ed. McCarthy, Elizabeth); McFarland. pp. 151–154; is refed with page range that encompasses entire chapter titled "Joseph Minion" and does not point to a specific claims, which can't be found in the chapter anyway;

so, these sources and their introduction on very controversial claims put forth in this article are all really concerning, and needs to be addressed before any repeated revert happened again - there was some reverting taking place in the last two to three days.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Some additional notes for BLP reviewers:

• The Salon article mentions the situation only obliquely: "Frank was ultimately paid handsomely by producers of a Hollywood film (which he won't name) that plagiarized his dialogue"
• The Lost Souls book says (p. 153): "details of the After Hours narrative "set up" were borrowed, without authorization, from an NPR Playhouse monologue by Joe Frank entitled "Lies"."
• A Slate article says "In a twist worthy of a Frank radio drama, the only feature film based on his work was made without his permission: Frank got some settlement money after the screenwriter Joseph Minion seemed to draw from his monologue “Lies” for Martin Scorsese’s After Hours."
• A New York Times article says "The script, by a Columbia student, Joseph Minion, apparently borrowed elements of a 1982 monologue about a hookup gone awry by the radio storyteller Joe Frank"

HTH, 66.31.23.79 (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing of cited articles (Slate, Salon) can be used under strict BLP guidelines. Google Book preview, page 153, conveniently is unreachable after several IP changes, but even if someone could reach it for confirmation, it is still unusable for these claims, in all three related articles - Joseph Minion, Joe Frank, After Hours (film) - because those it is a hearsay, mentioned here and there as a sort of literary-cinema legend, and only in passing at best, never "officially reported anywhere", just like Hearst himself admittedly wrote in his blog.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 12:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• By the way, it's important to point that that one sentence in mentioned Slate article - the only sentence which mention this episode - is actually based and linked/referenced to a above mentioned Gawker unsigned short entry, which itself is based and linked/referenced on both Andrew Hearst blog piece and on our own Joseph Minion article. Talking about WP:CIRC & WP:SELFPUB!--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I think 66.31.23.79's sources are reliable, as are the original sources in the article. The fact that Santa99 even rejects the evidence of a book he hasn't read (I like the "conveniently", BTW--does he think I took down Google Books so that he couldn't check my reference?) shows that nothing would really convince him that these facts belong in the article.

Here's another reference which I would have added to the article had I known about it before: Joe Frank repeats the allegation in his forum.—Chowbok ☠ 23:54, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

One more thing: I know we can't include anything about this because of the OR rules, but if anyone who's seen Afterhours is curious to hear the Frank show, it's here. It should demonstrate that the allegations are true, at any rate.—Chowbok ☠ 23:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I actually adore Joe and have never took particular notice or interest in Minion's career (barely knew who he is, in case some start coming to a certain conclusion), but that's not the point, we are not a forum nor place for hearsay allegations - references we put in article can't be used in manner that goes against guidelines in WP:Original research and Synth, while WP:BLP is even more strict in regard of what constitute RS. I never implied anything of that sort with regard of that book, I was pretty clear what I meant, which is exactly what I wrote.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 10:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Sean Chu

Sean Chu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The issue is whether we can say in "wikivoice" whether this person committed sexual assault without the word "alleged". I feel we must use the word "alleged", as they were never convicted (or even) charged with any crime. But, the opposing view[10], seems to be, that given the definition of the crime, and the available facts, we can come to that conclusion. There's been multiple attempts to make similar statements by IPs, which stopped with semi-protection, but then there has been another such edit by an established editor. So, I would like some broader input, to avoid edit warring. I know "alleged" seems like a weasel word, but it is sometimes necessary, given the available sources. -Rob (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Dorian Abbot

There is currently significant dispute over the content and balance of article on BLP Dorian Abbot. More attention from BLP-experienced editors would be appreciated. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Sarah Kennedy

I refer back to the now archived conversation on Sarah Kennedy from March 2021 at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive326. The now banned editor User:WelshDragon18 has returned under the name User:Susan1621. The editing habits are almost identical – same type of articles edited (including unsourced edits to Sarah Kennedy's page), with a subtle mix of semi-constructive minor edits laced with hugely disruptive/vandal edits. In the most recent case, I have had a relative of the art director Clifford Pember contact me via my talk page to express their frustration that this user keeps blanking the page in order to rewrite it about a totally different and non-notable Welsh World War II veteran. There have been other recent examples, where I have pulled this user up on disruptive editing, including using stand-alone original research of birth records for a 1928 year on the Bernie Clifton page (a BLP), despite reliable sources existing, and all supporting his 1936 DOB. Looking through their edit history, I can see more patterns of this. I tried to reach out to Susan1621 on their talk page a while back requesting civility after the user took a very aggressive tone with me, but I'm once again fed up of their disruptive editing and no doubt this pattern will continue. The Pember case – where an entire bio has been wiped so that they can write a vanity page for a non-notable individual (perhaps someone from their family or community) – is blatant vandalism. Also tagging in @GiantSnowman:, @No Great Shaker:, @Knuthove: and @CommanderWaterford: who were part of the previous discussion. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello again, Jkaharper. Thanks for the ping. I've been scanning this person's edits and I'm inclined to agree with you. Perhaps this is the 14-year old daughter who compromised the old account and got a good telling off, ha! There is a WP:DUCK test at WP:SPI and I reckon this does act, look and sound like a Welsh Dragon. Probably best to go to WP:SPI and request a checkuser test. Please let me know if I can help with that or any of the impacted articles. All the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree this is likely, but should be confirmed via SPI. GiantSnowman 20:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. I have opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WelshDragon18. Never done this before so may not be up to standard in the evidence section, but it's at least a start. Thanks again --Jkaharper (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

SPI case closed already. Susan1621 was indeed WelshDragon18. The sockpuppet account has now been banned. Thank you both for your contributions and advice. --Jkaharper (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Daphne Guinness

I stumbled into this as a result of a report at WP:UAA and don't really have the time to keep babysitting it, but there is ongoing problematic editing and probable socking as well. Could use more eyes. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see what the problem is. Her claim to notability is that she is rich and fashionable, and the sources support that. The only issue I can see is the amount of bloat in the BLP which could comfortably be pruned by 75% or more. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC).

Lena Raine

Lena Raine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone is attempting to use the wrong pronouns for Raine, with their attempts to revert my edit correcting their vandalism being their only recent contributions to the wiki. Furthermore they do not even have an account, being an IP account.

diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lena_Raine&diff=next&oldid=1051940912

- Hopolapopola (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I've requested page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Editors (with COI?) may be blocking references to controversy

I was researching this person having heard of his work for the first time today and, after reading the (very detailed and somewhat promotional) Wikipedia article, discovered elsewhere that he is the subject of fairly widely reported (especially given his relative obscurity) allegations about misogyny and worse, and that these controversies have spilled over into, for example, protests at some of his speaking engagements. There is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, but on the talk page there are clear attempts by some editors to make mention of them, with lengthy and fairly aggressive rebuttals by others. The argument against including them in this article appears to be based on the claim that BLPs cannot mention Me Too allegations, and pejorative-heavy claims that the sources, which include a lengthy and apparently well documented Buzzfeed article, are not reliable. I was unable to find out what the BLP policy is regarding "Me Too" allegations, but the arguments on the talk page seem (a) specious—other BLPs on Wikipedia mention similar allegations— and (b) are so defensive and argumentative that the editors making them appear to have a COI or relationship with the subject. While Wikipedia articles cannot and should not try to adjudicate such claims, the total absence of them in the article seems like subject-serving omission, rather than good encylopedic practice, and did me a disservice when researching the subject. I would be grateful if someone who is expert in Wikipedia BLPs could take a look at this article and decide whether any edits are justified.

PS The article also seems to be bloated with far more detail than is merited by the subject's notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.114.79 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

ben olson

Ben Olson, former BYU quarterback and UCLA transfer is listed in his wikipedia article as having "the tightest buns in UCLA history". The citation makes no mention of this odd acheivement. Is this someone messing with his profile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.148.37 (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

That vandalism was added here, and I've reverted it. The IP also changed the spelling of his name to a more common spelling. I don't know if that is correct, so I'm leaving that as-is for now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Lexi Ainsworth

In the personal life section, it states she is dating a female costar. She is not a lesbian or bisexual. This cannot be verified either. It should be removed.

I removed it as it was completely uncited; feel free to do this next time on your own. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Michael Chan (Canadian politician)

It appears that there is an attempt to whitewash Michael Chan by section-blanking of WP:RS. Would be great to have more eyes on this page. - Amigao (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Dethan Punalur

No References/Cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.72.131.49 (talk) 13:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Submitted to AfD. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Richard Stanley (director)

Richard Stanley (director) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor (CHARLESLESORCIER777) has begun editing the article in order to add updated content regarding sourced controversies outlined in the article that have resulted in Stanley's project being dropped from production (also sourced). The content isn't being removed altogether, but the initial edits removed the allegation and fallout while adding the denial, which won't make any sense to the reader. The header continues to be modified to a less neutral version as well; the apparent POV nature of these edits give all appearances of CHARLESLESORCIER777 having a conflict of interest with this topic.

I'm hoping some editors here could review the material with an eye to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and decide how the controversy and consequences of such should be addressed in the article, if at all.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum - talk page consensus from March appears to lean towards inclusion of the material.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I've done a bit of work on it, and added it to my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  I'd appreciate some more eyes on it still, as a bit more npov editing has popped up. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Addendum 2: While I'm not new at writing, I am new to the wiki format. I didn't mean to erase the entire section on Richard Stanley's wikipedia entry. But wiki's interface was fighting with me. And suddenly the whole page was a mess because of one badly entered tag. Sorry, my bad. But that doesn't mean I have a conflict of interest. I think I've now succeeded in removing the part that wasn't referenced. And since someone else has gone in to made the section more wiki-compliant Also, if a person's name isn't to be mentioned in a section title, I understand that. But when I started editing that, there already was a name in there. The article I referenced made clear that name was an alias. I merely wanted to make the title factual and accurate. I had no bad intent. Hope all is good now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Also, keep in mind that if your edits are reverted you should discuss on the talk page. It's easy to escalate a situation when reverting and communicating through edit summaries. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you. -ClS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CHARLESLESORCIER777 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Axos Financial

My name is Greg and I work for Axos Bank, a subsidiary of Axos Financial. In compliance with WP:COI, I have proposed various changes to the Axos page on Talk. I am posting at this noticeboard regarding a subset of those changes that involve BLP issues with uncited or imbalanced criticisms of the CEO. The areas I believe are BLP issues are as follows:

Extended content

The following italicized sentence infers the CEO was responsible for the failure of his prior employer. There is no citation and the relevance to Axos is unclear: "In October 2007, the company named Gregory Garrabrants as CEO, who was head of corporate development at IndyMac Bancorp at the time.[7] IndyMac failed the next year as the "fourth largest bank failure in the United States." Wikipedia's content focuses on inferring the CEO's compensation is excessive or unjustified, but the source material focuses mostly on his high compensation being earned through a performance-based compensation structure. I suggest adding something like the bolded sentence below to better balance this content: "In April 2019, it was reported that the Axos CEO, Greg Garrabrants, earned $34.5 million, making him the highest paid bank CEO of 2018, despite Axos being 250x smaller than banks such as JPMorgan. The CEO's compensation structure was tied to growth in Axos' share price, which grew 72% that year and 1,657% since Garrabrants became CEO." The italicized content below is not supported by the citation, which just says "no comment" on whether the CEO's computer was exempted: "In March 2020, the Axos CEO, Greg Garrabrants, emailed employees to let them know he had instructed his IT team to install spying software on everyone's computer (excluding his own)" References

Thank you in advance for your time and energy reviewing my points. Best regards. Gfrostaxos (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure you're reading those first two the same way I did, and perhaps the author wasn't trying to be offending. I mean, if a company folded just shortly after he left, it tells me he was a driving force that was holding it together. But I guess it's all in how you look at it. Either way, it was unsourced and irrelevant commentary so I went ahead and deleted it. Same with the second and third request. I don't think the added commentary you suggested, about why he got paid so much, is of anymore use than comparing company sizes. This article is not about him.

That said, the article is terrible. It's basically just what I'd call a timeline of events, which are very boring to read. (ie: At 7:30 I awoke and shut off my alarm. At 7:32 I brushed my teeth. At 7:35 I took a shower...") And there seems to be a weird thing where we just call it "the company" in every single sentence, as if we're talking in code for the CIA. I'm guessing someone came along and tried to simply cover up all traces of the old name, Bolf, or whatever it was, which we shouldn't. It comes off as a bit on the promotional side, and needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Work which I don't have time to do myself. Zaereth (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Jim Jordan (American politician)

Jim Jordan (American politician)

Editors of the page, upon review of their profile and political views as a result, are introducing unnecessary and personal political biases into the nature and context of the article, affecting how it reads, therefore violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afchlam (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Afchlam:, the page can be edited by people with any personal political beliefs. Do you have any specific examples to indicate where the article fails WP:NPOV? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I second that we need specifics.--67.70.100.169 (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Eben Alexander (author)

I appeal to fellow Wikipedians in an effort to clarify erroneous information on the page about me. Reference to the talk page covers the main issues in detail. The following falsehoods should be corrected:

"His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 under medically-induced coma when treated for meningitis. He asserts that the coma resulted in brain death, that consciousness is not only a product of the brain and that this permits access to an afterlife." is false, and should read:

"His book Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife (2012) describes his near-death experience that happened in 2008 during a coma due to bacterial meningoencephalitis. "His medical records suggest that his coma was not drug- induced, as his brain function and level of consciousness were clearly impaired and on a downward trajectory before sedation and started to improve before sedation was discontinued".

Another irrelevant addition that should simply be deleted (Alexander was never found guilty of malpractice, thus these distractional statements do not contribute to understanding the nuances of Alexander's medical case): "While practicing medicine in Lynchburg at the Lynchburg General Hospital, Alexander was reprimanded by the Virginia Board of Medicine for performing surgery at an incorrect surgical site, two times over the course of a month. In one instance, Alexander altered his operative report because he believed the surgery had diminished the patient's symptoms. He was sued by the patient for damages totaling $3 million in August 2008, but the case was dismissed by the plaintiff in 2009. As a result of the mishaps, Alexander lost his privileges at the hospital and was forced to pay a $3,500 fine to the Virginia Board of Medicine and complete ethics and professionalism training to maintain an unrestricted medical license in the state.[5] Following the release of his 2012 book Proof of Heaven, Esquire magazine reported that Alexander had been terminated or suspended from multiple hospital positions, and had been the subject of several malpractice lawsuits and that he settled five malpractice suits in Virginia within a period of ten years."

This allegation of Alexander's termination from multiple hospital positions is also false. There was never any termination "for cause". Please delete this libelous statement.

The extreme scrutiny involved in cases of alleged malpractice suggests that the absence of finding Alexander guilty in several attempts implies there was no malpractice. This red herring of missed attempts at proving malpractice was introduced in the defamatory arcticle by Luke Dittrich in Esquire in 2013, which should be deleted as a reference. It has been thoroughly debunked by researcher Robert Mays who found in his peer-reviewed report that:

"To me, the Dittrich article is shoddy and irresponsible journalism — shoddy because of Dittrich’s and his Esquire editors’ evident failures: • to consider alternate explanations (rainbow), • to check with the cited witnesses (Holley, Phyllis, and Betty Alexander and Sylvia White), • to verify information with additional witnesses (Holley Alexander, Michael Sullivan, and others), • to check with medical experts (on the likely cause of coma), • to check again on crucial testimony of the sole cited witness (Laura Potter), • to read the book carefully (Scott Wade’s statement about Alexander’s coma), • to exercise care in asserting erroneous “facts” (use of drugs was not mentioned in the book), • to exercise care in quoting and interpreting recorded remarks (Dalai Lama), • to exercise common sense in interpreting the meaning of statements (Dalai Lama), and • to respond when serious questions of accuracy were raised (interview request by Alex Tsakiris about Potter’s statement). And Dittrich’s article was irresponsible because of the impact— the real harm— that the resulting distortions have caused."

The following current statement should be modified to reflect a critique of one of its sources (Sam Harris's blog posting it references): "The book was a commercial success but also was the subject of scientific criticism in relation to misconceptions about neurology, such as conflating medically induced coma with brain death"

The relevant insightful commentary calling out Harris's errors are found in Bernardo Kastrup postings directly addressing the Harris statements:

"The more unfortunate aspect of Harris' criticism, which I personally believe is beneath him, is a subtle attempt to discredit Alexander's capacity to judge whether his NDE could be explained by traditional neuroscience. This is embedded in a quote Harris adds to his post; a quote from his UCLA thesis advisor. Here is the relevant part: Neurosurgeons, however, are rarely well-trained in brain function. Dr. Alexander cuts brains; he does not appear to study them. "Now pause for a moment and read this quote again. The notion here is that Alexander, a practicing neurosurgeon and Professor at Harvard Medical School (here is his resume and here his extensive list of academic papers), does not understand what part of the brain does what while he is hacking at people's brains every day."

Thank you in advance for trying to bring some factual balance to this article. Ealexander3 (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

See previous discussions at BLPN 1,BLPN 2, BLPN 3BLPN 4. This is all reliably sourced content, and we can't use self published blogs or other unreliable and involved sources such as the Journal of Near-Death Studies article to undercut the sources we have. - MrOllie (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

References

moyal-sharrock

This is a faulty entry about me. Kindly delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deletion12 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Daniele Moyal-Sharrock article? If so, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion of biographies and BLPs. Wikipedia doesn't automatically delete biographical content on request, but it may take such a request into consideration - this will require verification that the request is coming from the individual concerned. Meanwhile, if the article is 'faulty', it would help considerably if you could give some indication as to why, given that it appears to cite appropriate sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Terminfo

Hi. The article Terminfo refers in a number of places the original author, Mary Horton. We are having a difficulty that a user (and it seems to be one user) insists on repeatedly violating MOS:DEADNAME. The page history shows a long history of changes to reinsert the deadname, sometimes spuriously justified with reference to WP:RS. Other editors come along and fix it, and this one person puts it back.

I am not familiar enough with Wikipedia's processes to know how best to resolve this. Please would someone help? Thanks.

Ijackson (talk)