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.

RfC notices

Samaire Armstrong has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.

Malik Zulu Shabazz has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.

Louis Farrakhan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. gnu57 01:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC) gnu57 01:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It would have been better for you to have raised the BLPCAT issue here once you had been mass reverted on your mass changes rather than RfC every article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Background for other editors that GNU removed disputed categories (Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States, Anti-black racism in the United States, Antisemitism in the United States) from 30+ BLPs with explicit references to BLPCAT, (User contributions 12:06, 12 August 2023 to 12:48, 12 August 2023) and Beyond My Ken mass reinstated them without addressing whether there were BLP issues (User contributions from 00:33, 13 August 2023 to 00:45, 13 August 2023). Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that Genericusername57 made mass category deletions without seeking or receiving a consensus to do so. How Wikipedia's policies are interpreted is completely a matter for the community to decide, and for4 that reason, mass deletions or additions of any kind require a WP:CONSENSUS to be legitimate. Deletions made without such a consensus are subject to being reverted until the issue is decided by the members of the community in a consensus discussion, generally an RfC. This talk page is the appropriate place for Genericusername57 to start an RfC and get the needed consensus. Individual RfCs held on individual article talk pages are not sufficient, such a discussion needs to be held in a centralized place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

BLPCAT is a policy that reflects consensus of the community. You mass reinstated without addressing this or obtaining consensus per WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The policy represents community consensus, but questions about how it is to be interpreted also need consensus as well. That is why there are judges in the real world, to interpret laws, no matter how straight-forward they may appear to be. That's the role that the Wikipedia community serves here in regard to our policies.

I suggest that it might be helpful for you to take a refresher course in how to AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you take the course in reviewing GNU's edits? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the other participants of the 3 RfCs about this discussion (Mgp28—StAnselm—Mathglot—GnocchiFan—Regulov) about the 30+ BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think anyone has disagreed that WP:BLPRACIST represents a community consensus that BLP articles should not be in these contentious categories. The disagreement that started this discussion seems to be about procedure followed in removing articles from the categories.

So is the question now whether BLP articles in these categories should be removed from them? That seems to be an inevitable consequence of BLPCAT so my !vote is to remove them. Mgp28 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the three RfC discussions as it didn't seem to be helping the discussion to have it fragmented across four separate places. Almost all comments in those three discussions are already reflected here.

A comment in Talk:Louis Farrakhan#RfC: Bias categories mentioned something not currently here so I am copying it to allow any further discussion. Comment by User:Rhododendrites 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC):

No per CATBLP, but also he's already in most of these categories [a couple steps removed] by virtue of being in Category:Nation of Islam.

Mgp28 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. People shouldn't be in racism, etc. policies, but they can be in organizations that are. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see a problem either. I just didn't want to close the conversation on your comment before people had a chance to read it. Mgp28 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some tricky areas with BLPCAT. Like should Richard B. Spencer be in Category:American neo-Nazis? That seems like a BLPCAT violation, right? But it's also a defining characteristic of the subject. However, some of these were not tricky areas and very straightforward applications of BLPCAT. Undoing them en masse just because "get consensus", and therefore committing mass BLP violations (edit warring as a default mode of user interaction instead of, you know, actually making specific objections) is disruptive. Following the wording of BLPCAT should be the default, not something you need to find consensus for -- it's a policy; there's already consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

While I haven't time to look into the specifics of these articles/categories, in general I would say that we need to be extremely careful about our use of categorization. It's a very powerful tool, because it dehumanizes and reduces people down to nothing more than the title of that category. Now, I'm not saying that we should eliminate it altogether, because categorization is a very fundamental part of how our minds work, and probably the minds of any animal with an amygdala (the emotional center of the brain). We cannot help but draw these rather arbitrary distinctions between things, simply because it's a much easier way to store and sort information in our own minds. (For more, see User:Zaereth#Little boxes). But, because it is so linked to our emotions and because it does dehumanize people, it is an extremely powerful propaganda tool as well. Categorization is the root of all stereotyping, which in turn is the root of all prejudice. When labeling someone a neo-Nazi, just keep in mind that the Nazis themselves used categorization to extremely devastating effect. My advice to everyone is to use extreme caution or risk becoming the very thing you fight against. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

CATBLP is clearcut. BLPs being placed in topic categories is also a big pet peeve of mine. There's a reason Category:Antisemites doesn't exist, and it's no reason to add BLPs to topic categories like Category:Antisemitism instead. Readers who click topic categories are likely looking for articles directly relevant to the topic, whereas for 99% of these BLPs, it's the inverse: articles to which the topic is only partly relevant.

Also I'm pretty sure that ~0% of readers notice, care about, or click categories (which aren't displayed on mobile), so the less time we spend on them, the better. If I thought it would stand a chance, I'd propose replacing the whole system with something like WP:Featured topics and WP:Good topics, like Britannica (except for maintenance cats). DFlhb (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States

I'm starting to review and remove the disputed categories, one-by-one rather than in mass. There are a couple of dead people that I left the category untouched. I reverted myself on one BLP, Roy Moore, against removing "Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States" because the article text made it clear that he made rulings against people on the basis of their homosexuality rather than harbor bigoted views. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Along the same lines, Schenkstroop reinstated the category Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States to Nick Fuentes arguing that homophobia is discrimination.[1] The fundamental question is should this category be applied to people who hold and express bigoted opinions against LGBT or require a discriminatory act like what Roy Moore did? I believe the latter if the category should exist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Couldn't there just be a new category 'Anti-LGBT rhetoric (or views/figures) in the United States' or something like that? Zenomonoz (talk) 09:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin

I need feedback on Andrew Anglin. I originally removed the category Misogyny because of WP:BLPRACIST since misogyny is a more severe charge of sexism. BMK disputed this, and I ultimately self-reverted because Anglin literally says, "I hate women" in the article text so I doubt he would dispute being called a misogynist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BLPCAT and this discussion from 2011 don't say that no one holds or expresses views that are sexist, racist and so on. They say that there is a consensus not to include anyone in these categories. Although the discussion I linked to is now 12 years old, I don't think anyone here has shared anything suggesting it no longer reflects community consensus.

If instead we want to say that we will include people in these categories who are definitely misogynist etc. then:

1. We will need a new consensus to do that, and

2. Someone will come along and mass add BLP articles to these categories. No one will be able to mass revert them because they will argue that the person definitely belongs in that category. So instead we will have RfC all over the place on "does this expression of racism or that expression of sexism belong in this or that category?"

Nuanced discussions about a person's beliefs can, and should, still take place in the article, with links to the reliable sources that support each statement. But I think it's safer (and reflective of continuing consensus) to adopt a unified approach for contentious categories that no BLP are added to them. Mgp28 (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PS -- I'm new to this noticeboard. Will this discussion eventually get closed? I would remove Andrew Anglin from Category:Misogyny but I don't want to jump the gun on an ongoing discussion. Mgp28 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Richard Wexler - potential delete?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wexler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure about this one. This page appears to lack secondary source notability, mostly the sources are primary source e.g. Wexlers own website, or his submission to congress, and then the ones in media are his own op-eds and articles he wrote. There are no secondary sources actually covering him that would establish notability to warrant an article.

There is a large paragraph claiming he has been interviewed and featured in a total of 15 media outlets, but there are only a handful of citations, most of them do not even mention his name, one is a fake citation, and the few that do are just op-eds he wrote! The one major secondary source literally get's one sentence from him, which seems like a low bar for notability. Can editors please advise on deletion and what to do? Zenomonoz (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick web search suggests that what you see in the article -- i.e., that he shows up as an author or for brief quotes as an expert on child protection -- is what is out there, rather than third-party material talking about him in depth. So yes, a good candidate for deletion. The article was created over a decade ago by Valwex (talk · contribs) (if that name suggests COI, at least the editor did do it through Articles For Creation, so properly.) The article did survive one attempt to speedy-delete it in 2016. It is not heavily edited -- zero edits in 2023 to date -- so odds are good that if you use the simple WP:PROD deletion process, no one will show up to object to the deletion. If you do take it through the full Articles For Deletion process, be sure you follow the guidelines at WP:BEFORE first, doing more than just a basic web search (i.e., what I did) to make sure that there aren't sources giving notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. I hope you'll repeat your concerns at the deletion discussion page (linked at top). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nat. Your comments would be good on the AfD. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Javier Milei

There is currently an NPOV discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard.

Arleen Sorkin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The death of the subject of this article has been reported on social media, but it has not been reported in any reliable sources and every report so far is based on a single tweet from a single voice actor. In addition to reporting the death without a source, people are adding a specific date for her death when that isn't even in the tweet that is being cited as a source. This seems to be a violation of WP:BLP and WP:USERGENERATED. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: The poorly sourced report was also added to Deaths in 2023 while this discussion was ongoing. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

"while this discussion was ongoing"? That's completely not true, I added her almost 4 hours before this thread was opened. Rusted AutoParts 03:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I must have looked at the wrong tab, I thought it was added recently. I'll strike that out. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The article is Arleen Sorkin. I would tend to agree. If these additions are coming from non-autoconfirmed users, then Wp:RFPP is a good idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I see that it has already been protected. Is extratv (the source cited for her death) a RS? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

On the front of the RS, her death HAS been reported in reliable sources. Extra TV in this particular case was the one I cited on her page. Neil Kaplan is the originating source, a colleague of hers. He tweeted about it, and it has been reported on by the secondary sources we need since social media can't be directly cited. Rusted AutoParts 02:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: It is. Has been used often to cite deaths, and have never had issues taken up with it before. Rusted AutoParts 02:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Extra is not listed as a reliable source and if you read that article, it's completely based on the one tweet (as of right now). Resubmitting it to RfPP is not a bad idea. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Jim Cummings, another colleague, has also corroborated, it's not just the one person on social media. Even still, it's been reported by Extra. It's confusing as to why it's being disqualified given I am not seeing the location you're stating its "not listed" on. Rusted AutoParts 02:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Another tweet saying "RIP" is not confirmation. It's not appropriate to toss the BLP policy out the window because it's a recent death. Please wait for a reliable source to report her death (and that does not mean reporting on tweets or reporting on fan tributes). Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do you insist on ignoring my point that most news first originated through social media and that's how most reliable sources first obtain said news? We HAVE a reliable source in Extra reporting her death. Extra not ever being in a discussion at the Perennial Sources list does not disqualify it's reliability. Me highlighting Cummings only serves to show it's not just Kaplan on Twitter that's worked with her saying she died, not to use as a source to link directly. This is....so frustrating. Rusted AutoParts 02:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

A gossip tabloid reporting about a single tweet is pretty much the definition of an unreliable source. The second tweet that you're citing doesn't confirm anything. It simply says "RIP [Arleen Sorkin]". Wikipedia isn't trying to be a newspaper that reports breaking news before it's confirmed. Wikipedia depends on verifiable and reliable sources. Given the prominence of Arleen Sorkin, I am confident reliable reporting will come, but it's not here at this point. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Cool your jets and just wait a bit. Could be a few hours, could be days. A reliable source will pick this up. JFHJr (㊟) 02:57, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

We HAVE a reliable source reporting it. Declan personally assessing it as "gossip tabloid" is meaningless, and still doesn't stand to disqualify it as being a reliable source. "Wikipedia isn't trying to be a newspaper that reports breaking news before it's confirmed" no one's doing that, I am making use of a reliable source to update a page's information to reflect an update to the subject.. And again, the Cummings tweet was just to do away with the sentiment it's just the one guy saying she passed. Rusted AutoParts 03:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Three editors have now formed a consensus that a more reliable source is needed to update this BLP. You've had two recommendations for patience and three asks for a better source. Refusing to accept a consensus by repeating yourself is not productive here. JFHJr (㊟) 03:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

...wut? All I see is TWO editors having agreed with one another, one editor simply inquiring about whether Extra is or not, and myself who feels it is. No consensus was at all formed, this thread is barely even an hour old. Rusted AutoParts 03:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

There's DQ, and Hemi would "tend to agree," and there's me. Just like you said it's only been a short time. Precisely why you should be patient. JFHJr (㊟) 03:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I dislike speaking for people, but it would seem to me Hemi's "tend to agree" was about the inclusion of a death date, which they rightfully removed from the page. They next asked in a second comment about it's reliability. Whether or not they agree with who remains to be seen, they haven't said anything since. I am not against a consensus not in my favor, but not when a persons stance is decided for them, nor when it's such a small pool of people (2). Rusted AutoParts 03:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

It hasn't even been 12 hours since Neil Kaplan's tweet said he "heard" she had died. The Extra article is literally a report about a tweet that is itself hearsay. Throwing WP:BLP and WP:RS out the window and not waiting for a reliable source to report that she has died doesn't make any sense. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

And I'm the one getting scolded about repeating myself... And frankly your definition of hearsay is pretty skewed. Rusted AutoParts 03:33, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't mentioned that about the tweet before. Let's focus on the content itself and Wikipedia policies. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:36, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop the back and forth, everyone. Please wait, everyone. Please keep info out until a consensus indicates it's reliably sourced. The gripe doesn't need to be fleshed out any further, except for the best one or two sources when they crop up. JFHJr (㊟) 03:37, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Deadline Hollywood has reported it now, Deadline Hollywood is considered generally reliable for entertainment-related articles, so this surely closes the book on this. Rusted AutoParts 04:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems sufficient to report the death.

I don't think this can quite be closed, though. The date of her death still hasn't been reported and it's still listed as August 26th in Deaths in 2023 and as August in Arleen Sorkin. Even though it's likely to be a very recent date, the month or day of the month hasn't been reported and should be left out. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter is now reporting an August 24 death date. Rusted AutoParts 05:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the update. I agree that this can be closed out now. It's good that we've corrected the date and it reminds us of the importance of following these policies. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kalki Bhagawan

Hi,

I would like to report a very serious violation of the Biographies of Living persons policy about Kalki Bhagavan / Kalki_Bhagawan. I argue the page is an attack page and the content on the page is tantamount to repeated specific violations of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy which I shall now give point by point arguments for.

All points are made as per the latest edit available at the time of writing this description which is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kalki_Bhagawan&oldid=1163515114

Firstly and most egregious is the summary itself.

"Kalki Bhagawan (born 7 March 1949 as Vijay Kumar Naidu), also known as Sri Bhagavan,[1] is a self-styled Indian godman, cult leader, businessman, and a real estate investor.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8] A former clerk in the LIC, he claims to be an incarnation of God (the Kalki Avatar). He is the founder of 'Oneness' / 'Ekam' cult and White Lotus Conglomerate.[9]"

To describe somebody as a "godman", is a pejorative. To say something is a cult, is also not neutral. What might be a cult to one might be a spiritual retreat to another. Both of these I argue are "contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision" - because though a large number of articles are mentioned - but each of the sources mentioned 2 through 8 are opinion pieces in magazines. These cannot be substituted for court verdicts or formal results of investigations.

These are not links to news events e.g. the inauguration of a temple premise or anything technical. There is no burden of proof on any of them from a legal institution or a court or any Government institution at the state or city level.

Therefore, I firstly request that the summary be changed in a manner which better reflects the facts on the ground.

Next, the order of information itself is especially egregious. When a person's details are mentioned, even https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler - their/ her /his personal details are mentioned and then the list of things they / she / he did and finally any controversies / critical opinion. Here, this is completely the opposite. Please help correct this. Wikipedia as mentioned is not a newspaper and certainly not an editorial piece or tabloid.

Finally, the sheer volume of negative claims on the Wikipedia article are mind boggling

1) Most of the accusations are from 2019 about Income Tax raids on the premises. However, these are serious accusations, and the formal and final decisions of the courts should be mentioned (especially now that it is 4 years). If the decision of the court is to find the defendants not guilty, then it is certainly a moral imperative to at least mention that. Wikipedia edits are not a higher authority than a court decision made by the law of the land

2) The tone of the article is generally extremely negative against Kalki Bhagavan but is favorable towards any of his critics

- Viswanath Swami is called a social activist, but no further analysis is done on the merit of his claims. in the first paragraph itself the word "alleged" is used. That is argued to be against "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."

- "Another writer at the time, Shameem Akhtar, was also critical of what she called the 'Kalki craze" - just because somebody is critical, it is not worthy of putting on a Wikipedia page. Please just stick to facts, court reports.

- "Dakshina Kannada Rationalist association" is called well known but that is not relevant to the claim here. Whether they are well known or not it is the merit of the claim.

3) Most of the headings are directly negative. "Allegations of Fraud and founding of White Lotus Conglomerate" , "Accusations against the organization", "Rebranding the cult - 'Ekam'" and numerous others are based on a premeditated opinion - please just help this article stick to facts.

4) All of the links are to opinion pieces which are argued to be "Avoid gossip and feedback loops" - when so much biased information is present, it is fair to request especially given this is a living person to only stick to the facts. Of the 100 links, please remove all the links which are not reports of actual events from newspapers. If a negative claim is made e.g. a court case report, please follow up with its result - especially after multiple years of the said claim. Or don't mention it. One good idea is to put all the allegations under a single concentrated section and not spill all through the article.

5) Political affiliation, is a matter of opinion and in the Republic of India, confidential to the individual expressed solely by their unanimous right to vote. Please therefore remove that section asspeculative. Reference: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages."

Finally all information here is frozen in time. "The investigation is in progress" is incorrect, it might have been true at 2019 which the source links, but no follow up has been done.

The reason for this is shooting down of any neutral content edits also, leave alone anything positive.

This is my first time reporting an article on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you would like me to change my style to add more references etc. I am keeping it shorter, given the request at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya the sun (talk • contribs) 15:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but this is quite different from neutrality. Wikipedia neutrally reflects what published reliable sources state. So if something is described a certain way by the majority of reliable sources, the Wikipedia also describes that thing that way. Wikipedia doesn't represent both sides equally, which many mistake as the purpose of the NPOV policy. To do so would be against the policy on WP:FALSEBALANCE. I suggest raising your concerns on the articles talk page, but you will need to show that reliable sources back up any change you desire to make. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:04, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No, they need to show reliable sources for any additions they wish to make. If they wish to have material removed, showing that it lacks reliable sources should be sufficient. Some legitimate sourcing questions are raised above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks ActivelyDisinterested and Nat

Yes Nat - that is the crux of my claim. I shall take that up in point 2 below. But before that let me not even talk about the sources but why this is an attack page (arguments follow)

1) I am happy to accept the view that all Wikipedia requires is a neutral point of view of all published sources, not neutrality per se and no original research. All right. Then it is not about whether the person is living or not (possibly higher standards should apply for living persons as there is an impact on their life). Let us not even talk about the factuality of sources (will take up next)

Then take Osama bin Laden or Adolf Hitler - where there is wide spread agreement and reliable information by multiple modes of information of the loss of human life (regardless of political conviction) caused by them. Even then, the neutral point of view in Wikipedia as evidenced by the articles does not degenerate into name calling, as it should be.

Hitler is not called the "self styled savior of Germany" nor the same for Bin Laden as the "self styled issuer of Fatwa to the United States" and the organizations they led when alive are not referred to as cults - at least not in the first paragraph which shows up in all Google searches on them. This is as it should be and is the essence of factuality, civility and respect which is what is needed in an encyclopedia. Neither of these courtesies are extended to the subject of this article Kalki Bhagavan, even when the allegations are far less severe as per most legal systems in the world and also categorically unproven in courts.

If you can see the difference here, then that is the essence of the argument of why this is an attack page, especially the order of information. The earlier information is what shows up on Search Engines. Allegations and criticisms should be kept impersonal, verified and concentrated and generally after facts are presented neutrally.

Further, note these search engine searches have no impact on the lives of the individuals I mentioned as they have passed away. But they have a tremendous impact on the life of a living public figure which is why I quoted this parallel and the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

Finally the impact of this attack page (provided you agree that is a reasonable argument) is amplified by LLMs which consume Wikipedia and they have no advantage of human judgement. They will spit out the attack verbiage in unexpected and unexpected damaging ways.

In all the cases above, verifiable real details of the above their personal life are mentioned first with verified facts - positive or negative (even with no original research) . Why not extend the same courtesy to a living citizen of the world with no such damage to human life associated to them?

In the next post I will try to do a point by point rebuttal of sources in terms of whether they constitute a good Wikipedia source for a living person. Aditya the sun (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to come up with a list for point by point, trying to present it as neutrally as I can. It is taking some time as there are 110 cited sources, I will post within a few hours. Aditya the sun (talk) 20:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok here is a point by point analysis of the sources provided.

- there are 42 duplicate links, 20 opinion pieces, 1 blog post lol , approx 10 irrelevant links and several broken links/ which can’t be accessed

- that being said, please note I have tried to be objective and several are proper news reports, and those are fine

My request is

- remove the duplicates - this is not as heavily cited as it seems

- see link 92, Vishwanathan Swamis case was turned down - please allow mention of l such things especially when it is cited

- don’t allow opinion pieces and blog posts as sources for a human life

- please check for relevance , don’t allow irrelevant links

- however any criticisms do mention them in a

maintain civility and respect As much as that extended to Hitler or Osama Bin Laden as argued before

this is a living human being’s Life - and this should be in line with the biography of living persons policy

1. Nadkarni, Vithal C. (2008). "Oneness to the rescue of a world in peril". The Economic Times.
   • Opinion piece, called out at the start
2. From humble beginning to Godman Kalki". www.outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 6 August 2021.
   • Link wrong
3. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
   • Opinion piece
4. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". lifepositive.com. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece
5. "The cult of Kalki". mm-gold.azureedge.net. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece
   • Logical fallacy There is a logical fallacy right at the start of the article - it says cults are bad. It then says Kalki Bhagavan is a cult and then therefore it is bad. But no proof or logical arguments are provided as to why it is a cult.
6. "How Kalki gave me a story, but not an Aishwarya look-alike". Times of India Blog. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Blog post/ Opinion piece. Is this serious? Why is a blog post allowed as an established source?
7. "The Kalki Craze Outlook India Magazine". Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece
8. Shobha, V (November 2019). "The cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
   • Opinion piece in a magazine
9. "IT seizes Rs 33 cr from premises of godman Kalki Bhagwan and son". Hindustan Times. 18 October 2019. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
   • This is a news report. Good, only objection I have is the use of the term Godman is never justified in the title.
10. "The cult of Kalki". mm-gold.azureedge.net. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 5
11. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 28 November 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
12. "Inside godman Kalki Bhagwan's world: Bollywood celebs, real estate and drugs". The Week. Retrieved 28 November 2020
    • Opinion piece
    • Allegations and hand wavy, tying to Bollywoood and drugs is textbook tying to association
13. Thorsén, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • This is fine, looks like a university student’s investigative paper but none of the results seemed strange.
    • On page 70 the author did say that such a movement is not strange in India
14. Kalki, Cult of (November 2019). "Cult of Kalki". Open Magazine. Open Magazine.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
15. "life positive". lifepositive.com. Religioscope.
    • Broken link
16. "India: a visit to the Oneness Temple of Amma-Bhagwan". Religioscope. 13 July 2008.
    • Opinion piece
    • do look at at least the last sentence in the last paragraph - “the guide sounded honest”
17. Founders, OO academy. "OO Academy Founders". OO Academy. OO Academy. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • Not a safe link
18. OM, WRSP. "WRSP – OM". WRSP. WRSP. Retrieved 8 May 2020.
    • This looks ok, I don’t have a specific objection
19. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
20. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 9 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
21. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 10 October 2021.
    • Opinion piece
22. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
23. "Income Tax Department conducts Search on a 'wellness group' in Chennai". Pib.gov.in. 16 October 2019. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
    • No arguments here, government report
24. DTNext, Publisher (20 December 2019). "907 acres linked to Kalki ashram attached". DT Next. DT Next. Archived from the originalon 11 June 2020. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • News report, reasonable
25. "900 acres of land owned by godman Kalki attached". Deccan Herald. 20 December 2019. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • Again a news report, reasonable except for the Godman pejorative
26. Vijayakumar, Sanjay (19 December 2019). "907 acres of land belonging to Kalki group attached". The Hindu. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • News report, not fully public so cannot comment but seems ok
27. Dec 21, B. Sivakumar. "Kalki Bhagavan case: 900 acres of benami land attached by I-T | Chennai News – Times of India". The Times of India. Retrieved 10 May 2020.
    • Again a news report, reasonable except for the Godman pejorative
28. "'Kalki' Bhagwan hospitalised". The Hindu. 1 December 2019. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
    • News report, not fully public so cannot comment but seems ok
29. "India: a visit to the Oneness Temple of Amma-Bhagwan". Religioscope. 13 July 2008. Retrieved 6 June 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 16
30. Preethaji; Krishnaji (6 August 2019). The Four Sacred Secrets: For Love and Prosperity, A Guide to Living in a Beautiful State. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-1-5011-7379-0.
31. "Publishers Weekly". publishersweekly.com. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Book review of a book by Kalki Bhagavan’s son. Why is this relevant?
32. "Society once had religion to give it purpose. Now it has wellness coaches". British GQ. 12 January 2020. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Again an opinion piece
33. Shobha, V (1 November 2019). "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
34. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
35. Ardagh, Arjuna. (2010). Ontwaken in eenheid : de kracht van de oneness blessing in de evolutie van ons bewustzijn. Wel, Anna van der. Houten: Zwerk. ISBN 978-90-77478-32-5. OCLC 662568093.
36. "Oneness Movement – WRSP".
    • Broken link
37. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 24 May 2020.
    • Opinion piece
38. "Chinese Actress Deletes Her Weibo Post Promoting 'Controversial Indian Spiritual Courses'". News18. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
    • Again there is no way that the deletion of a social media post is relevant to a human being’s 75 year life span. I am finding this irrelevant
39. "After Taiwanese Actor's Post, China Warns About Indian 'Cults'". The Quint. 17 January 2019. Retrieved 14 May 2020.
    • This is not a news report, it is an opinion piece
    • One of the problems straight away is a comparison of this with another organization of Ram Rahim. Why is this a valid comparison is not specified.
40. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 19 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
41. "After marathon Income Tax raid, godman Kalki Bhagwan faces ED heat". Hindustan Times. 24 October 2019. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • News report, ok
42. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Goteborgs Universitet. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
43. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal
    • Opinion piece.
44. Swamy, Rohini (22 October 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan, guru who started as LIC clerk & now has 'undisclosed income' of Rs 500 cr". ThePrint. Retrieved 29 June 2020.
    • Opinion piece, though initially a news report
45. Newcombe, Suzanne; Harvey, Sarah (15 April 2016). Prophecy in the New Millennium: When Prophecies Persist. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-07459-5.
    • Can’t read book but ok
46. Townsend, R. Lataine (4 January 2012). 2013: Beginning an Era of Hope and Harmony. BalboaPress. ISBN 978-1-4525-4342-0.
    • Can’t read book but ok
47. Ganguli, Aurijit (30 May 2020). The Shambala Sutras. Notion Press. ISBN 978-1-64892-982-3.
    • This is about a different Kalki, not relevant
48. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". lifepositive.com. Retrieved 2 July2020
    • .Duplicate
49. "Investigators seize more than $14 million from spiritual guru Kalki Bhagavan – EasternEye". 22 October 2019. Retrieved 28 June 2020.
    • initially a news report but later
    • Opinion piece - again a comparison with unrelated Ram Rahim is provided
50. Cowan, Douglas E. (2 September 2009). Corrigan, John (ed.). "New Religious Movements". Oxford Handbooks Online: 125–140. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195170214.003.0008. ISBN 978-0195170214.
    • Don’t have access to this, but even this agrees ‘cult ‘ is a pejorative
51. "Who is Samael Aun Weor?". Samael.org. Retrieved 25 December 2017.
    • 404 page not found
52. Sikand, Yoginder (2008). Pseudo-messianic movements in contemporary Muslim South Asia. Global Media Publications. p. 100.
    • problem even without having read the book - firstly Kalki Bhagavan is in India and India is not a Muslim country
53. Juergensmeyer, Mark (2006). Oxford Handbook of Global Religions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 520. ISBN 978-0-19-513798-9. ISBN (Ten digit): 0195137981.
    • Not available to read but ok
54. "The Kalki Craze | Outlook India Magazine". outlookindia.com/. Retrieved 7 July2020.
    • Duplicate
55. Sri Bhagavan Interview hosted by Mitchell Jay Rabin for A Better World TV early in 2005, retrieved 8 April 2020
    • Interview, reasonable
56. site admin (17 June 2002). "Cult in crisis – RELIGION News – Issue Date: Jun 17, 2002". Indiatoday.in. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
    • Opinion piece.
57. Nayak, Narendra. "The cult of Kalki by Narendra Nayak". mm-gold.azureedge.net. Retrieved 16 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
58. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • Duplicate
59. "Who is Kalki Bhagwan Who Once Predicted Death of Organised Religions and Now Faces I-T Heat?". News18. 22 October 2019. Retrieved 6 March 2020.
    • Duplicate
60. "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • No objections
61. "The Future of World Religions: Population Growth Projections, 2010–2050". Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project. 2 April 2015. Retrieved 25 June 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 60
62. Windrider, Kiara; Sears, Grace (2009). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-57731-724-1.
63. Windrider, Kiara; Sears, Grace (2009). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-57731-724-1.
    • Duplicate, same as 62
64. Ardagh, Arjuna (1 April 2009). Awakening into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. Sounds True. ISBN 978-1-59179-864-4.
    • Duplicate
65. Calleman, Ph.D, Carl (16 July 2015). "The Mayan Calendar & The Transformation of Consciousness". A Better World. Retrieved 13 June 2020.
    • Book, ok
66. Roth, Ron; Montgomery, Roger (2007). The Sacred Light of Healing: Teachings and Meditations on Divine Oneness. iUniverse. ISBN 978-0-595-44896-8.
    • Book, ok
67. Nadkarni, Vithal C. (26 January 2008). "Oneness to the rescue of a world in peril". The Economic Times. Retrieved 11 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
68. Imranullah, Mohamed (22 November 2019). "'Kalki' Bhagavan's daughter-in-law moves HC against 'look out circular'". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 26 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
69. "Rs 44 cr cash, 90 kg gold, Rs 20 cr worth US dollars seized in I-T raids on properties linked to spiritual guru Kalki Bhagwan". DNA India. 21 October 2019.
    • Duplicate
70. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 6 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
71. Ardagh, Arjuna (29 October 2009). Awakening Into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-3614-7.
    • Duplicate
72. "Bhagwan Kalki | Life Positive". lifepositive.com. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
73. Convened Insiders, Maverick (6 February 2020). "A controversial babu, a godman, film producers: Meet the faces behind the INR16,000 crore bid for RCom – ET Prime". ET. ET Prime.
    • Again this uses the Godman pejorative, not relevant also
74. "The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan". Open The Magazine. 1 November 2019. Retrieved 4 May2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 8
75. "Nairobi's tallest building planned". Deccan Herald. 22 December 2016. Retrieved 3 May2020.
    • This has no mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
76. "Hilton kicks off second Nairobi high-end hotel". Business Daily. 23 May 2017. Retrieved 2 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
77. Monks, Kieron (23 June 2017). "Work begins on the tallest skyscraper in Africa". CNN. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
78. "Africa's tallest building aims to be a standout". The Business Times. 24 September 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2020
    • Not a public link
79. Wambu, Wainaina. "Nairobi's elegant office space that no one wants". The Standard. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
80. "Dubai tycoons sought for contempt of court". Kenyan Tribune. 7 February 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
81. "Dubai tycoons sought for contempt of court". Daily Nation. Retrieved 4 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
82. "Vacant school about 1 mile west of the former Northridge Mall proposed for 100 affordable apartments". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
83. "Dubai investors inject $200 million into Africa's tallest tower". africa.businesschief.com. Retrieved 6 May 2020.
    • Link doesn’t work
84. "Hotel Deco XV is Deco'd out". smallmarketmeetings.com. 11 October 2013. Retrieved 9 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
85. Thorsen, Elin. "Oneness of Different Kinds: A Comparative Study of Amma and Bhagavan's Oneness Movement in India and Sweden"(PDF). GUPEA. Goteborgs Universitet. Retrieved 15 May 2020.
    • Duplicate link
86. "Bangalore franchise kabaddi team launched". Business Standard India. IANS. 16 July 2014. Retrieved 3 May 2020.
    • No mention of Kalki Bhagavan
    • It mentions the White Lotus group which he is allegedly part of, but that has its own Wikipedia article
87. Kosmik Music – YouTube
88. The Cult of Kalki Bhagavan – Open The Magazine
    • Duplicate - same as 8
89. "Studio-N Channel Locked Out?". 9 July 2018.
    • Only mention of Kalki Bhagavan is that it involves people who are “apparently” belonging to the Kalki religious organization
    • Why is that relevant to this article? Is it relevant to mention a Microsoft member in a biography on Bill Gates?
90. . Suares, Coreena (16 October 2019). "IT Sleuths search Kalki Bhagavan's properties in Hyderabad". NewsMeter. Retrieved 6 May2020.
91. June 17, Arun Ram; June 17, Arun Ram; August 6, Arun Ram; Ist, Arun Ram. "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
    • Duplicate
92. Correspondent, Legal (3 February 2004). "Plea for CBI probe against godman turned down". The Hindu. [1] "
    • The case was turned down!
93. "How Kalki gave me a story, but not an Aishwarya look-alike". Times of India Blog. 4 November 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2020.
    • Duplicate
94. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
    • Duplicate, same as 3
95. Rangarajan, A. d (22 October 2019). "We have not fled the country, says Kalki Bhagavan, after I-T raids on his premises". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 1 May 2020.
    • This is a news report, again uses the word Godman unjustifiably
96. Imranullah, Mohamed (22 November 2019). "'Kalki' Bhagavan's daughter-in-law moves HC against 'look out circular'". The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    • Not fully public but looks technical enough
97. Sivakumar, B. (21 December 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan case: 900 acres of benami land attached by I-T". The Times of India. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    • Duplicate
98. Windrider, Kiara (2006). Deeksha: The Fire from Heaven. New World Library. ISBN 978-1-930722-70-5.
    • Duplicate, same as 62
99. Ardagh, Arjuna (29 October 2009). Awakening Into Oneness: The Power of Blessing in the Evolution of Consciousness. ReadHowYouWant.com. ISBN 978-1-4587-3614-7.
    • Duplicate
100. Reily, Suzel Ana; Dueck, Jonathan M. (16 March 2016). The Oxford Handbook of Music and World Christianities. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-986000-5.
     • There was nothing in the linked page about Kalki Bhagavan
101. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 7 August 2020.
     • Duplicate
102. "Narayanan, Dr. Vasudha, "A 'White Paper' on Kalki Bhagavan, 29 September 2002", University of Florida, Gainesville, Montclair". msuweb.montclair.edu.
103. S, Jayaseelan K. (19 October 2019). "The rise of 'Kalki' Bhagwan: From an LIC agent to a self-proclaimed 'avatar'". The Federal. Retrieved 9 February 2020.
     • Duplicate
104. Ardagh 2008, Chapter 1,2.
     • Duplicate
105. Arun Ram (17 June 2002). "Kalki Bhagwan controversy: Tamil Nadu-based godman encounters spate of accusations". India Today. Retrieved 5 March 2020.
     • Duplicate
106. site admin (17 June 2002). "Cult in crisis – RELIGION News – Issue Date: Jun 17, 2002". Indiatoday.in. Retrieved 1 March 2020.
     • Duplicate
107. Swamy, Rohini (22 October 2019). "Kalki Bhagavan, guru who started as LIC clerk & now has 'undisclosed income' of Rs 500 cr". ThePrint. Retrieved 12 August 2020.
     • Duplicate
108. "Concerns over health status of Kalki Bhagawan". Deccan Chronicle. 30 October 2016. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
     • This is a news report. At this point, he is referred to as a spiritual Guru.
109. "Kalki Bhagavan hospitalized". mytelangana.com. Retrieved 17 May 2020.
     • Duplicate
110. "Mystic and the moolah". The Week. Retrieved 23 May 2020.
     • Duplicate, same as 3

Aditya the sun (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@NatGertler I have also added a summary of these arguments to the talk page under the heading “reasons why this is an attack page”. My arguments are now ready from my

end to be reviewed. Please take a look! Aditya the sun (talk) 09:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@ActivelyDisinterested@NatGertler I also want to call out strong bias in the talk page - I have raised specific objections there where guilt is assumed without merit of the claim. I request you to please see those as well. Aditya the sun (talk) 09:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ariel King

I've just reverted a new user for removing information from the article. I've taken a look at the controversy section and the only references to the custody of the child is from a blog (in PDF form) and court/hearing records. Refs are...[2], [3], [4], [5] (podcast). I'm wondering if this is suitable?

A agree that this material is troubling, deriving solely from primary court records or from non-reliable blogs. I would note, that in the absence of this "controversy" section, I would assess this article as not meriting inclusion, and would recommend its deletion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:06, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The whole section doesn't sit right, especially because of the sourcing. There seems to be a push to also introduce promotional edits as well today.

The controversies section was introduced by an ip in July this year. Knutsen (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIMARY Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Anything that is referenced to court documents should be removed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The 'controversies' section is entirely non-compliant with Wikipedia policy, per the above (citing blogs, court records etc). I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @AndyTheGrump:. I know that blogs are not acceptable in most circumstances and I was fairly sure court records are a primary source. Knitsey (talk) 20:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed another court document record from the personal life section. Knitsey (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

And I've deleted the section entirely, since the only remaining 'source' supported nothing. Per comments above, there seems to be no real evidence that King meets Wikipedia notability criteria, and unless some can be found, the article should go to AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Oph, I've not done that before. I might back away quietly and let someone else handle that. Knitsey (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added templates for primary sources and notability, and will give it a few days in case proper sourcing can be found, before nominating it myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to keep an eye on it to see what you do as I'm interested in how it all fits together. Anyway, thanks for sorting it out. Next time I will be bold. Knitsey (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Aria Finger

I'm inquiring about the specific issue of the staff walkout and its reasoning and effects in the background section. The issue has recently been added three times by three different editors. I deleted the first two as they made claims that weren't supported by the citations (in addition to possible BLP violations). The most recent addition is supported by the citations but I think it still leans towards tabloid/gossip/unsupported allegations about a WP:NPF that would be a violation of the BLP guidelines. I do think it's a closer call and as a relatively new editor I wanted to get some input from the community before I made any changes. Thanks for your help.

If staff refuse to work and specifically gave those reasons and demanded her resignation, I don't think it's in itself a BLP violation. We do have to be careful how we word it, but as the CEO of a company I think to some extent she's a public figure at least when it comes to stuff specifically about her tenure as CEO. And a relatively large number of staff refusing to work and specifically demanding your resignation isn't an ordinary thing for CEOs. The only question then is the sourcing. WP:Vice doesn't seem a great source and I'm not sure Nonprofit Times is either. I don't know specifically about it, but such specialty sources targeting tend to have poor editorial standards, mostly it comes across in excessive puffery and promotional articles, however it also means we have to be careful about any content they publish. Also d we have any sources which talk about what happened? It sounds like she is still CEO, so was this just a one day protest with some concurrent actions e.g. internet petitions and tweets which quickly fizzled out? Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nil Einne. It looks like she isn't the CEO anymore - there's a Forbes article from 2022 that says she was Chief of Staff to Reid Hoffman at that time - but a quick google search doesn't yield any information on when she left the org. And after searching around a bit I haven't found any other articles talking about the walkout. BMFife (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Tiff Macklem

I've just removed a series of statements in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR from the "Governer of the Bank of Canada" section on this page. All of them appear to have been added by various IP-only editors in late July 2023. Edits were rather slanted and appeared to be unsupported by the attached references. Should the page be semi-protected?Vulcan's Forge (talk) 17:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protection is only warranted if the issues are ongoing. Wait and see if the information gets added back in. If so, semi-protection may make sense. But if the disruption was only in July and doesn't resume there is no need. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It has continued with a different IP now writing "Restore information lost feom recent lame attempts to censor legitimately sourced input." I've semi-protected the article. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:58, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Saw that, thank you for the revert and the response. The original and restoring IPs all geolocate to Saskatchewan so they're probably the same person. I assume I don't need to close this and the bot will automatically archive it; if not, I have no objections to closure.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Alan Jackson

Please not the follwinf error - searching for [Alan Jackson] links to [Michael Jackson] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB91:58C:D0FA:FCEE:320D:9DA5:EC3C (talk) 21:39, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This is ongoing vandalism, I've made a req at WP:RFPP. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Angelique Houtkamp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angelique Houtkamp (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Self-authored promo-page. Too subjective and filled with irrelevant info. Not wiki-worthy. Qwrk (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Greetings and thanks for your comment. I've removed all the obviously problematic sources. Because the prose doesn't even claim anything special, I did not remove it as unsourced or contentious, but anyone else might. If you believe the article should not exist, the correct forum is Articles for Deletion. I'm sure followers here would contribute to a discussion there, if linked here. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@Qwrk: I'll observe you're ostensibly trying to retire but having a relapse, so I took it to AfD for you. If you can make it to the discussion, that'd be nice. JFHJr (㊟) 23:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the effort that you put in, highly appreciated. Yes, I'm not as active as I was before, but still hang on to my account in case there's important mountaineering info to be added to wikipedia, which is my main topic of interest. Again, I thank you very much! Qwrk (talk) 08:58, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Aidan Comerford

• Aidan Comerford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Comerford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Aidan Comerford is an advocate for trans rights. A wikipedia entry for Aidan Comerford was created by a person who was been harrassing Aidan for years, who currently goes by the user name "WarrenWilliam" a few months ago. The page should be considered for deletion, or WarrenWilliam should be blocked from editing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ziggymaker28 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, I’ve never harassed Aidan Comerford.

Secondly, I didn’t even know who Aidan Comerford was one year ago, let alone many years, so the idea of he and I having some sort of long-running communication is absurd.

Thirdly, are you Aidan Comerford? Because if so, editing your Wikipedia and Wikiquote pages, either under the name Ziggymaker28, or Ferretface78, or JohnBoyne71, or the IP address 109.78.51.110, is a big no-no. WarrenWilliam (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@WarrenWilliam and Ziggymaker28: It looks to me like you're both right for referrals to WP:SPI so that's where I moved your concerns. Warren's discussion is over here and Ziggy's is over there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Under our processes for deleting articles, we are apt to delete if the person is not notable enough that Wikipedia requires an article on them (for which an argument could be made, at least based on the references currently used in the article), or that the page is an "attack page", which is judged less by intent than by content, and the page at the moment does not seem to be generally such a page. Barring some statement from WarrenWilliam that they are the person you claim them to be, we would largely look at the content of their edits on the page at hand to see if he needs to be barred, and I'm not seeing anything particularly problematic about the edits, although you are welcome to indicate why you feel their edits are a concern. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:57, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Goodreads, Amazon, Twitter... This is not a good WP:BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I hope you'll leave a vote at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aidan Comerford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) JFHJr (㊟) 21:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I shall comment there, but I'll sleep on it first. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Cori Schumacher

• Cori Schumacher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, I am Cori Schumacher, the subject of the Wikipedia page Cori_Schumacher. My Wiki user name is Beyawnd8.

After experiencing intense online bullying over the last few years, I am now in a battle to preserve my Wikipedia page. There is an active effort to vandalize my page - Cori_Schumacher. The user is BottleOfChocolateMilk.

What can I do to protect my page from this vandalism effort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyawnd8 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide an example or two of the vandalism, and explain why it's vandalism? I see you provided some updated info and an image of questionable copyright status. Otherwise it looks like a plain old edit war and a double case of WP:COI and WP:OWN. JFHJr (㊟) 23:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Your edit attempts did highlight some sourcing concerns so I've partially re-instated some of your changes. As for the rest we really need secondary sources for your political career. And as for the pronoun thing, isn't that you X profile? Note as JFHJr said, your Wikipedia biography doesn't belong you. And you really shouldn't have created it yourself. As long as it exists, it needs to follow our policies and guidelines and will not be a hagiography or a biography you explicitly approve of. Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Kathryn Campbell; CPA Australia

There is a current discussion on the CPA Australia and Kathryn Campbell pages with another IP editor who is wanting to include a reference to a member of the organisation, with a description that she is "disgraced", I note that the same editor has included the phrase in the person's individual page as well. I have been accused of vandalism, but am merely wanting not to place undue weight on including a mention to a member of an organisation on a page that has no mention of individual members, notable or otherwise, so including her on this page would likely place undue weight on the subject. I note that the editor has not referenced their work, either to confirm her membership of CPA Australia, or to justify the phrase "disgraced". Would appreciate some more input or contributions to the discussion to help establish some consensus as to the right way forward here and here, given the history (and future risk) of edit warring on these pages.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 06:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning on an article about an organization that one random member out of 150,000+ is "disgraced" is completely out of place unless it has directly to do with their membership of the organization. And even then it would be most likely WP:UNDUE. Calling someone "disgraced" without clear support by reliable sources is a textbook WP:BLP violation. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Completely agree, and despite attempts to discuss the matter, the IP editor has reverted attempts to balance wording of the Kathryn Campbell article, and despite my attempts to reach consensus with other editors, has not engaged with us in any of the talk page discussions. Should this IP editor continue reverting content, an edit war is likely, and page protection (for Kathryn Campbell at least) may need to be considered.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK at Pope Benedict XVI

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could someone have a look at this edit to a high profile almost WP:BLP by a new account, and revert or partially revert a needed [6]? Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

You're talking about a WP:MOS concern whose textual content would not require BLPN consultation even with a living subject. This subject has been deceased over 6 months, and the actual content referenced in your comment does not relate to BLP issues per se, let alone BLP issues lingering from before or after death that merit extended BLPN attention (up to a year after death). I don't think this is the right place to ask for MOS help. JFHJr (㊟) 19:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Also, be bold. Revert it just one time if you disagree with it. JFHJr (㊟) 19:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jacob Hanna

This article is the subject of heavy back-and-forth editing (not by me), and has an enormous “Controversies and criticisms” section with many citations to PubPeer, as well as some throwing around of the world “slander” in edit summaries. I think it would benefit from attention from more people. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit war notice

Please see the recent history of Caroline Overington and the respective talk page discussion regarding the removal of personal material. Many thanks, SN54129 17:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Saucedo

I had never heard of Aaron Saucedo until today. The article starts out by saying that Saucedo is "an accused American serial killer". What it should say is that he is accused of being an American serial killer. The first wording implies that he is a serial killer even though the case hasn't gone to trial. Later in the article it says he had a job as a bus driver and while in this job committed "his first murder on August 11, 2015, with a Hi-Point 9mm pistol".

I opened up the page, saw the mugshot in the infobox, read the number of victims, the dates of his killing spree, and believed that this guy was a serial killer. Then I find out that he is only accused of this stuff. This isn't fair to the accused. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I have proposed the article for deletion, as it fails WP:PERPETRATOR -- even if he were to be convicted, he was not otherwise a celebrity, nor has any unusual motivation been given. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. For all the multiple murderers in the United States, only a few are actually notable for their crimes. They usually make national news well before conviction (cf. Manson, Bundy, and the Vallow/Daybells). Even if this subject is convicted and then significantly reported in national news, it would still seem difficult to justify an article otherwise entirely based on state-level crime coverage of an otherwise private subject. JFHJr (㊟) 23:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Might this BLP not be moved to a more neutral name space? I'd undo my last reversion if it had the name "Phoenix street shootings." Then, coverage of the event could go on without it being a BLP space wise. Of course, concerns regarding the accused and surviving persons remain for attention. JFHJr (㊟) 00:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have been originally at Maryvale serial shooter. Whether we need an article on that is another question. This doesn't seem to have generated the national coverage of a Son of Sam, nor, seven years after the arrest, has it become a basis for discussing larger topics a la the Murder of Kitty Genovese. But even if we end up with an article there, we should not include a redirect from the suspect's name unless a conviction on a significant portion of the charges is made. But I should note that some of the coverage that is used as reference there are national (such as CNN) or at least non-local (Chicago Tribune carrying AP material.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm hoping for a successful PROD. Otherwise, let's figure out what direction to take this once we know our forum options. JFHJr (㊟) 23:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Neema Parvini

• Neema Parvini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article should be removed. Details are wrong, potentially defamatory or libelous. Person is not notable enough for a page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‪84.21.135.36‬ (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2023‎

Greetings. Thanks for your comment. I've lightly edited the article to remove things that were problematic BLP-wise. Were there any other points of contention? If you believe the article should be deleted, you might register a user account and begin a conversation at a different notice board: WP:AfD. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 22:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I've also created a new thread at the article talk page. Please voice your concerns about outstanding issues there, unless no consensus emerges from the talk page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:14, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Tamaz Somkhishvili

• Tamaz Somkhishvili (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Many of the links claiming cooperation with Russian ministry of defence etc. are libellous and utterly untrue, as they are part of a Ukrainian Black PR campaign to tarnish the name of Mr Somkhishvili due to the ongoing Legal Case he has against the City administration of Kyiv since many years before the war.

They are Piecing together a coat hanger article to try and distort the truth and create a narrative that will help the ukrainians to hide their corruption and their malicious activities by throwing dirt at an innocent person.

Many of the text should be deleted, in fact, the entire article should be deleted.

Please see Press release: https://zaiwalla.co.uk/news/article-detail/zaiwalla-co-acting-for-british-citizen-and-investor-tamaz-somkhishvili-to-seek-redress-through-english-court-for-unlawful-actions-destabilising-court-proceedings-in-ukraine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.17.151 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

You should take your concerns to the article talk page, where germane comments have occurred, but no discussion attempt in over 2 months. This probably didn't need escalation to BLPN right away. But since you're here, would you 1) please clarify that your comment re "libelous" above is in no way a legal threat to editors who may disagree with you; 2) please clarify whether you have any relationship with the subject; and 3) please state what particular sources are problematic and why? That last one, about sources, might as well go on the article talk page... JFHJr (㊟) 22:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Ruby Franke

Ruby Franke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Can I request some eyes on this article about a vlogger who has been accused of child abuse? The article has been expanded by a new editor, Therangerrick, to include unreferenced personal info (which appears to have been removed in an intervening edit) and the names of two minor childrene: their changes on September 5, with some intervening edits by others. I made the following edit with an edit summary detailing the issues: [7]. I followed up with a section on their talk page detailing policy, which they have responded by characterizing as "unhelpful overall": User talk:Therangerrick#Concerns. They then reverted me and followed by removing the two names and making other tweaks. The first-person mentions and grocer's apostrophe remain uncorrected, as does an extra use of the BBC source, but my primary concern is the WP:UNDUE detail on the allegations with dates taken from the video content (and set off as a separate section). The only new source cited by Therangerrick, so far as I can see, is Distractify.com, which I doubt is an RS we should be relying on for added details; the only thing I trust it on is the site at which the petition was created. Rather than revert, and noting that the article was created in a somewhat non-neutral and bloggy style, I request attention from editors with BLP experience. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify. Your overall attitude was unhelpful. Anything useful in your response was overshadowed by the way you presented yourself. There was nothing wrong with the policy citations. Therangerrick (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It was a polite note about serious policy violations. That's about as helpful as it gets. Most people would have slapped one (or more) templated warning message(s) on your talk page and been done with it. Instead Yngvadottir took significant time to explain to you in detail why and how your edits violated Wikipedia policies so you can learn from your mistakes. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Therangerrick (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not even sure why this is even an article? Surely it fails WP:N? Knitsey (talk) 18:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Potentially. Though she had 2.5 million subscribers and was quite popular. Therangerrick (talk) 18:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she was WP-notable before the arrest, and WP:PERP would apply to someone who hasn't been convicted. It's getting coverage because of people's schadenfreude at someone giving advice on parenting and being themselves an (alleged) bad parent. Schazjmd (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. But it has (more than) three RS and even though they are all WP:NEWSPRIMARY that means if it's taken to AfD people will say "passes GNG". -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to Random person no 362478479 for the endorsement of my approach, and to Morbidthoughts for making some changes. Apart from grammar/syntax, the effect of Therangerrick's edits is a matter of balance: they expanded the coverage of the accusations of abuse and set them off under a separate heading for greater impact. They added specifics, including dates, that are not supported by 3rd-party reports, but also removed at least two referenced details, the 5 days a week at 6 am and the "as of" (as a new editor, they may not have understood the function of the template). Since this made the article more sensationalist and since I agree that Distractify is a non-RS, I've gone ahead and largely reverted their changes again, but this time replacing Distractify with NBC News so we can keep the detail of where the petition was. I still don't see a source for one year but since that's a relatively trivial detail, I've kept it from their work with "citation needed" rather than reinstate the vague "early 2020s" wording I originally used. I've reinstated a couple of details that Morbidthoughts had removed because Therangerrick had moved them away from their citations. As to notability: I believe that ship has sailed with extended coverage on unimpeachable news sites, which is why I originally worked on the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

“Sensationalist” lol. This is misrepresentation, in violation of WP:AGF. Again, it was divided into sections for clarity. It was a nightmare to read because it was a huge paragraph that jumped all over the place. Therangerrick (talk) 23:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The use of social media sources to proclaim someone is dead

Although the specific matter is sort of resolved, because a published source popped up during the discussion, I am seeking input if asserting someone's death based on social media like TUMBLR, TWITTER, FACEBOOK posts are ever acceptable. The discussion was at Talk:Teeuwynn Woodruff. I recall seeing in guidelines or explanatory essay that death requires verification. I would like a link to that if someone has it.

I took the position that Wikipedia isn't a place to break ground on having the up to the moment news and we should not change the article as the subject being deceased until published by reliable sources. Others got ahead and used TUMBLR, TWITTER etc saying it was acceptable because the person who announced it is a former colleague of the deceased subject, or that it was someone who says to be her husband posting behind the deceased's own account. Is it reasonable to say we should have just sat tight until proper media outlets picked it up and published it, then cite that? Graywalls (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Social media is a self-published source and cannot be cited in a BLP about another person (WP:BLPSPS). This battle happens frequently when a death claim starts, with folks rushing to be first without waiting for reliable sources. We should wait, always. Schazjmd (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:BLP policy is clear:

Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article

and

Anyone born within the past 115 years (on or after 4 September 1908 [update]) is covered by this policy unless a reliable source has confirmed their death.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

(ec) Hell no. Under no circumstances would such a source meet WP:RS for such a sensitive matter. We don't use social media and other self-published sources for statements about living people, and until we have a proper source regarding a claimed death, we have to assume they are alive. We are obliged to 'sit tight'. The consequences of getting this wrong are vastly greater than those of being out of date. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely, it's reasonable to say. This comes up here a lot. Personally, I am of the opinion that we should never use social media as sources, period. They're not reliable, because anyone can say anything they like. People do hoaxes. Some people try to fake their own deaths. What's worse is they require too much interpretation by the Wikipedian. For example, inferring someone's birthdate because they posted a pic of a birthday cake. In the case of deaths, it has been rather universally agreed that we need good sources for that. Unlike birthdates, which my rise to the level of invasion of privacy, getting someone's death wrong can be very, very traumatic for not only the subject but also their friends and family. We should by all means wait until it has been reported in a reliable source; at the very least an obituary.

That always leads to the question, "what if it doesn't get reported or there is no obit?" Many people don't realize that newspapers don't automatically publish an obit when someone dies. It's up to the friends and family to write the obit and submit it to the papers if they want one, so not everybody gets an obituary. Not every notable person's death will be reported. In those cases I would say that it's far, far better to have an article that simply hasn't reported someone's death than getting such a report wrong, so I would strongly recommend erring on the side of caution and leaving it out until/unless reported in a RS. The price is too high if we get it wrong. I suppose after a person has reached 120 we can safely assume they're dead, but otherwise I'd just leave it out until a RS says otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 19:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

BTW, what if someone like Mark Rosewater (mentioned in Teeuwynn article) was to re-blog her husband's blog)? That would make it not "self" published. I can sort of see bloggers reposting each other to get around secondary source for non-notable things they really want to get published onto Wikipedia but do not get coverage in the news. Graywalls (talk) 20:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Blogs are self-published sources, and WP:BLPSPS still applies. Schazjmd (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's kinda using the idea of secondary sources rather loosely. A reliable source usually has editorial oversight to ensure that such mistakes do not occur, and a reputation for being trustworthy. For example, a newspaper wouldn't be any good if they accepted an obituary at face value. While we all know the content of an obit is written by the family, we can generally trust a newspaper to do the legwork necessary to make sure the person is actually dead. Can we say the same about a blog? I'd say the same about your question below, just to answer them all at once. In a good RS. the burden does not just fall on the author, but on the publisher and their chief editor. They're all staking their reputation, so the question becomes, do they have a good reputation? As a tertiary source, we don't do the kinds original research that secondary sources do, but what we can and should research is the sources and their publishers. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

https://www.cbr.com/teeuwynn-woodruff-obituary/ this would be good enough, right? The article sources the same thing, but as I see it, now the burden of fact checking falls on the article's author. If he gets it wrong, he's at risk of hurting his own reputation. Graywalls (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer sources that don't rely solely on social media for their death report (that they mention some other form of verification), but I don't think I'd win that battle when an RS reports it and editors demand to update the death based on it. Schazjmd (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

While I understand the concern about reliable sources, I frequently edit pages of people who are notable, but otherwise low profile. There have been a few articles where no sources meeting our standards was apparent a month or two after the apparent death (after a fairly careful search), but where I had no serious doubts about the death. I also had concerns that removing the fact of the death was causing some distress to surviving family and others. In such cases, after some time has gone by past the apparent event, I have not always removed death dates entered by SPAs and IPs. I am not sure what the right balance is here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Waiting for a month or longer at least gives the people who put information out to post a redaction if they realize their information is wrong. That's far from a guarantee, but it weeds out the "I just heard NN died", "Oopsie I heard wrong" issues. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It really does not matter how long: a month, a year, or more. No RS = no death reported on the bio. Generalrelative (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Policy-wise you are absolutely right. My point is merely that the risk of getting it wrong is higher the closer to the alleged event we are. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

True. Generalrelative (talk) 22:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand the concern not to cause additional distress to grieving family members, but the policy is clear on this matter. You're free not to intervene if you so choose. We're all volunteers here after all. But to truly resolve the issue you bring up would require a revision of policy. Generalrelative (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion recently. See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Arleen_Sorkin. There the consensus was that it is not enough that there are reports about a social media post. At least not when it is not a really solid RS. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

In response to Russ, I would say that if family members are expressing concerns about a person's death not being included in their article, then I would recommend to them to submit an obituary to the local newspapers. Wikipedia is not the place to publish them, but a newspaper will, and as far as I know there is no time limit. There is a way to get it included that doesn't involve social media. Zaereth (talk) 22:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's excellent advice. Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, like I said, I don't think everybody realizes that obituaries are not automatic, especially in todays age of social media. Someone has to write them and submit them on behalf of their loved ones, and in these cases we're relying o those friends and family to do just that. At the very least they should be made aware that it's an option. Zaereth (talk) 23:03, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Jeffrey Katzenberg

Jeffrey Katzenberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello editors, I'm Jeffrey and I work for WndrCo. I was hoping to generate some further discussion on a Talk page post I made on the Jeffrey Katzenberg article (I am not Jeffrey Katzenberg, but I do work for him) related to the addition of some recent content that I don't believe is adequately supported by appropriate sourcing according to the WP:BLP policy. I've laid out the argument in more detail there, but in short, recent content additions make claims that are unsupported by, and in fact are refuted by, the sources referenced in the addition. The content added is simply factually inaccurate according to its own sources. Given that I have a conflict of interest, I have not removed the content myself and am instead hoping to generate a consensus here. Please let me know what you think and if you have any questions. JeffreyAtWndrCo (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)