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.

Romesh Wadhwani

Hi: The page about Romesh Wadhwani is extremely outdated. Can someone please update it? I work at one of Romesh's companies so cannot do it directly but I am sharing a few notes:

Romesh is the chairman and founder of three companies not listed: SAIGroup https://saigroup.ai/ SymphonyAI https://www.symphonyai.com/ ConcertAI https://www.concertai.com/

He founded STG but does not have an active role at the company today (2022). He left in 2017 to found SymphonyAI.

Romesh was awarded a Padma Shri honor by the government of India in 2020. This is not listed https://www.cgisf.gov.in/event_detail/?eventid=180#:~:text=Romesh%20Wadhwani%20was%20awarded%20Padma,through%20large%20scale%20job%20creation.

Here is his listing in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/profile/romesh-t-wadhwani/?sh=6a07162c6ada

Some recent external coverage of Romesh, so you don't have to rely on press releases etc.

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2022/01/11/tech-billionaire-romesh-wadhwani-replaces-himself-as-ceo-as-he-considers-taking-symphonyai-public/?sh=2fc52e886d9d

Forbes: https://www.forbesindia.com/article/2022-billionaires/romesh-wadhwani-building-up-and-giving-away/75819/1

Michigan Five Fluke Freshmen

The article Michigan Five Fluke Freshmen was flagged in 2018 with a WP:N template banner but it appears nobody took notice. I suggest this should be revisited because the subject matter is quite obscure. The article discusses five one-term Democrat members of Congress from Michigan who were first elected in the 1964 Democratic landslide but all lost re-election in 1966. The article claim this is the last time such an event has occurred in a single state. Whether or not this remains true, I suggest merging this information into either the 1964 or 1966 elections pages. It seems 1964 would be the more appropriate page. The term “Five Fluke Freshman” is not part of the American political lexicon or commonly known election history; thus, I recommend merging it as noted above. It is worth mentioning in a larger article but does not merit its own article. Go4thProsper (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@Go4thProsper: since it appears none of these 5 politicians are living, this doesn't seem to be a BLP matter. And even if one or all of them were alive, it would still be a mater of notability and WP:DUE (and maybe WP:OR). If the group isn't commonly discussed as a unit (whatever it's called), then a redirect or deletion may be warranted. You might try starting a discussion at WT:MICH or WT:USC. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I easily found two 21st century books about political science that describe the Michigan Five Fluke Freshmen using that term. The first is The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society and the second is Nixon in New York: How Wall Street Helped Richard Nixon Win the White House. Accordingly, the topic is notable and the article should be kept. Cullen328 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Go4thProsper. Cullen328 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Fierce Urgency of Now simply mentions that the nickname exists. That's a trivial mention. It doesn't give significant coverage of the 5 as a discreet unit (compare to The Squad (United States Congress), for instance). In every single election there is a group of newcomers typically called "the freshman crop" or "incoming". If nothing more significant beyond this group of 5 can be said beyond "they got a nickname in this one election and were defeated in the next election", then that's probably better said in a single sentence or two at or 1966 United States House of Representatives_elections#Michigan(or perhaps an article dedicated to Michigan political history). Otherwise the article look like the trivial creation of a political junkie who care more about stats than articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who tagged the article in 2018. Seems I got no response on the talk page (until Cullen328 today) and forgot all about it. I'll take it to AfD. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

RfC: A TikToker, ... , other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.

Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.

Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the RfC confusing. A woman was assaulted by a crowd and six suspects were identified and charged. None of these people are otherwise notable, in other words there is not enough reliably published information about them to create a Wikipedia article.

There are only two reasons to name suspects in articles. One is if they are otherwise notable and the sources mention this. The other is if naming them in the article is useful in explaining what happened. But it serves no purpose in naming someone just for the sake of naming them. In this case it would be wrong to name the six unless you had something to say about how each individually related to the story.

TFD (talk) 19:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Adam Becker

Hi there,

I'm the subject of the page in question. There are a few factual errors on the page, as well as a concern I've raised about WP:NPOV being applied properly to one section of the article. I've laid all of this out on the talk page. I'm not going to edit the page myself, of course, but I'd really appreciate it if someone could have a look at this and make any edits they deem appropriate in response to my comments. Thanks! FreelanceAstro (talk) 23:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like some of the edits have been made, and I have requested Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics to review the balance of the criticism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Might be a good idea to loop in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Science as well, since the book is a book on the history and philosophy of physics. Could you request their attention too, Morbidthoughts? FreelanceAstro (talk) 00:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have crossposted to the two groups so that those who are familiar with the subject matter can evaluate the criticism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, hi, I did some small edits about his bio, but didn't touch anything about the book review (until now). I agree with @Freelanceastro with the wording not being great there. Did a very small rewording, removed some "while" and "although" words, should be more neutral now. — AdrianHObradors (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It's definitely an improvement. I left a few more suggestions on the talk page, including a rather serious NPOV violation that I only spotted after looking more closely at the references. FreelanceAstro (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Yara Salman

Reads like a CV.

Possibly written by the subject herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haman Aldhekair (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

James David Manning

Relies heavily on YouTube and to a lesser extent Rawstory.com, an unreliable source.[1] Doug Weller talk 11:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out which citations? The early one discussing his trip to Africa seems self-serving. I also have some concerns about using his church as a source. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I also have some concerns about the weight of this section[2] since there is a standalone article on the church itself. I'm not sure what Manning's role is at the church beyond pastor. The article does not mention if he is the head of the church. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What a seriously terrible article. I'm not defending the pastor or his views, but it's Like Wikipedians can't sleep well unless a bad guy is thoroughly called out as such, with every controversial utterance preserved (so that people can see how bad he is). Has he literally done nothing but criticize and be criticized? It makes Fred Phelps' article look like something out of Highlights for Children. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I reduced what I can by removing items cited to weaker sources as WP:UNDUE and extraneous detail about the church that is not about Manning. I am sure that there is more basic bio stuff in the stronger sources, but I don't have time to read them to supplement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Kim Petras

The article on Kim Petras (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) includes her birth name at the top of the early life section (pedantically, this word "néé" is also misused here). This seems to be a blatant violation of MOS:DEADNAME, since she was not notable under that name. Argument that she was the youngest person to receive reassignment surgery does not seem relevant since she identified as Kim at the time. Discussion on the talk page has gone nowhere, as the page has been repeatedly reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.4.170 (talk) 19:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The immediate issue has already been corrected by User:Beccaynr. Unfortunately other than more vigilance, it doesn't look like this is something we can easily deal with. Ironically although the article is unprotected, both recent additions of the name seem to have been by editors who are extended confirmed so short of an edit filter or full protection, there's nothing we can do to stop these additions before they happen. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added a hidden comment which I hope will reduce such additions [3] although I admit I'm not that hopeful going by the two recent ones. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Amna Al Qubaisi

The page is rather poorly written and does not conform to the standards of Wikipedia like one would expect. The main contributor of the article appears to be (or is closely related to) Amna Al Qubaisi, which would explain why the article is written more like an ad than a biography.

Some examples of less than neutral statements (emphasis mine):

• a racing driver that made history for the UAE when he became the first Emirati to compete at the legendary 24 Hours of Le Mans race in France
• Amna has made history by being the first Emirati woman to participate in motorsports
• Amna and her sister Hamda participated at the prestigious X30 Euro Series in Wackersdorf with Team Driver. It was Amna's first time to drive in Wackersdorf and she has showed great pace being amongst the top five in one of her heats.

The quality of some of the sources is poor. Amna Al Qubaisi's twitter account is used as a source for the results of some events, instead of official scoring: https://twitter.com/Amna_Alqubaisii/status/888817206401929216. Her Instagram page is also used as a source: https://www.instagram.com/amnalqubaisi_official

The article contains a high number of unsourced information. Examples are claims such as "She was also the first female to be sponsored by Kaspersky Lab". There is also some unverifiable information, such as "her interests include karting, gymnastics, and jet skiing."

The article has been proposed for deletion before, and I believe the article as poorly written and biased as this should be seriously rewritten or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramhaag (talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Kim Myers

Kim Myers contains a date of birth based on "California Birth Index, 1905–1995. Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California."

I removed both the date and the citation, citing WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, ""Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, ..." Another editor reverted the removal with the edit summary, "No good reason to remove perfectly fine sources".

I posted a message on that editor's talk page explaining my reasoning that California Birth Index is a public document and therefore should not be used to support a date of birth, according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. The editor reverted again, with the edit summary "It is a perfectly fine source as several otherpage for people use the californi birth index as well."

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I would appreciate clarification. Should California Birth Index (or any state's birth index) be used as a citation for birth date, full name, or other data in an article about a living person? Eddie Blick (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are right about BLPPRIMARY. Such a source should never be used. This is a very blatant violation of BLP and should be reverted immediately, on sight. Such a revert usually doesn't count as 3RR per WP:BLP3RR, because that is a pretty blatant violation. Also check out WP:BLPPRIVACY. For many people, birthdates are private, and we can't go around snooping through birth records, court documents, tax records, etc., trying to ferret out that info. We need a reliable source, but even that is not enough. For birthdates we need to find it published in multiple RSs; enough so that we can reasonably infer that the subject won't mind if we publish it too. If this source is being used for other people, it would be nice if the editor would tell us which articles, so we can go remove those too. Zaereth (talk) 03:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through and reverting some of their previous additions using the index. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted the editor again but it might be good to have a few more eyes watching this article. If this persists we may need an admin to intervene. Zaereth (talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Opened a sockpuppet report since they seem to be evading scrutiny.[4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

NB: These types of records are used far too often on Wikipedia, for living or dead people, to assert birthdates, death dates, family members, marriages, etc., often violating both WP:PRIMARY (asserting facts that have never been secondarily published) and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Too many people want to play armchair biographer and use Ancestry.com to write the definitive biography of someone who reliable sources haven't touched. Showbusiness biographies seem to be especially rife with such misuses of primary sources, which is even more problematic because it's common for showbusiness folks (historic and modern) to conceal or misrepresent their age. I spend quite a bit of time looking at FamilySearch records, and inferred birth dates for a single person might differ based on ages reported on censuses, marriage licenses, passport applications, and death certificates. Picking and choosing which primary source is "most correct" violates WP:OR. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Morbidthoughts, Zaereth, and Animalparty. I appreciate your feedback on this topic. I'm glad to know that other editors feel as strongly about this topic as I do. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of people who feel this way, which is why we have so much of policy dedicated to it. This comes up here a lot, and, unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to look at the bigger picture to see some of the ramifications of their edits. There's a small percentage of the population who are obsessed with birthdates, which goes far beyond just an interest in astrology or numerology. My sister is one of those. She talks incessantly about birthdates as if they have some sort of magical meaning, although hers is the result of a brain injury. Not that everyone obsessed with BDs is brain damaged, but she wasn't like that before which does suggest that there are certain areas of the temporal lobe and hippocampal complex that can produce heightened emotional responses to them. When you look at it logically, though, then it's easy to realize that BDs just statistical data; not much different from height, weight, or eye color. It's nice info to have --when we can get it-- but in most cases it's not necessary to define the subject and the article will read just the same without it. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

a lot of Cobretti1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits are adding birth dates based on public records via ancestry.com. also [5] is a list of BLPs thats mention california birth index and [6] is one for the texus birth index.Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 08:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• whistle* that's going to be a lot of work to remove. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Incredible. It will get only worse as Wikipedia gets larger, and people who care leave in disgust. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy

I would appreciate input at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy#RfC about ownership of the laptop. TFD (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Self-written bio

The article for Christie Neptune appears to be written by the artist herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.249.152 (talk) 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, if so, she should obviously declare a COI, but the article itself strikes me as pretty reasonable with good sourcing. I'll take a bit of a closer look. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC) ETA: on second look, I confess I am perplexed; can you explain why you think this? The history is somewhat dominated by one user, but I see no reason to assume that is the article subject?

It looks like it was written by Citrivescence, a long term editor with 200+ article creations. Doesn't appear to be an autobiography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I did write it and I am not Christie Neptune. Citrivescence (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Birth dates?

Do we have a policy on listing birth dates for living people? Given how useful birth dates are for identity theft, I think we should only list the year. Example: [7] --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DOB covers it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Kathe Perez

The Page "Kathe Perez"'s References fail to uphold Verifiability (One of Wikipedia's Core Content Policies)

References: 2. and 4. "http://www.speechlanguagepractice.org/" - has no relevance to the cited area as they lack any information regarding Kathe Perez besides a link to 1. and are the same link 3. "http://www.katheperez.com/" - no longer have relevance to the cited area as it now redirects to "https://www.evaf.app/pages/resources" 6. "http://www.asha.org/Members/ASHA-Makes-a-Difference" - leads to a Page Not Found 7. "http://forum.beginninglifeforums.com/index.php/mv/tree/7247/ba3e1065afa5921135efcfa69870ae1d/" - leads to a CAPTCHA that when completed causes a Fatal Error for the website 8. and 9. "https://books.google.com-books-about-professional/" - leads to a Site Not Found and are the same link

I don't know how to edit references, so I will leave this here. Sorry in advance. Sorry if this messes anything up on the page. I don't exactly know what I'm doing. I hope this page gets more reliable sources. Lots of Love my fellow Trans people! <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.41.81 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The refs are an absolute mess that's for sure. I've fixed the Google books refs although there's no preview for me so the Google books links aren't very useful. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Emma Byrne

Article claims Emma Byrne is romantically involved with Vicky Losada, but the source for this is dubious. The source article presumes the nature of their relationship based on a single Twitter post by Vicky Losada about Emma Byrne, a post that fails to imply beyond all reasonable doubt that the two are in a relationship.

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

This entry looks like a personal CV/resume. It needs to be moderated as it has a cut and paste feel from a self-endorsing site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BCA2:A400:8D5B:5A0D:1DAC:A466 (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Herschel Walker

The biographical entry for Herschel Walker is being edited to include quotations on political positions which detract from the editorial neutrality of the entry. Based on Wikipedia's guidance for [and neutrality|Quotations and Neutrality], these quotations inject the entry with clear political bias. The quotations are identified by the editor or editors as "gaffes" in the introduction to the Political Positions section, and the secondary source references support this categorization. It is not neutral to include gaffe quotes under this section, particularly since most of the quotes do not actually present a clear policy position for Herschel Walker, but are merely confusing statements that are being paraphrased by the editor. The purpose appears to be embarrassment and to present Walker in a negative light.