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.

Javier Milei

There is currently an NPOV discussion on the NPOV Noticeboard.

Whatever discussion there was is long finished, no new comments since 6 September. Commenting so that the archive bot does its thing. Madam Fatal (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion may have been finished, but on looking at the article I can't help but think that it still very much needs attention, particularly since this person is the leading candidate in Argentina's upcoming elections. Ostalgia (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Ben Aulich

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.

---

Can some people please check new article Ben Aulich? It contains many negative claims about living people and criminal cases and conduct, and I can't access the sources to check if it is a fair and due article respecting all aspects of WP:BLP (like WP:SUSPECT and so on), or a hit piece / one sided view. Fram (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems to be written by someone close to Aulich, with a lot of citations that are more about his opponents that don't even mention Aulich. Maybe an attempt at synthesis. Not sure if this is a BLP1E. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

After review, I've nominated this for AfD.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts, it's straight up WP:ADVOCACY and WP:RGW. The material you removed gives that away. Google Britney Higgins or Bruce Lehrmann if you want to get an idea for the motivation for that article given that's the bulk of the material that you removed, which had nothing to do with the subject. It's a hit piece on Shane Drumgold. The stuff about referring to a respondent in a civil dispute as being prosecuted speaks to the loaded language being used. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 26 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.

Karen McCarthy Woolf year of birth

Please see Talk:Karen_McCarthy_Woolf#Removing_year_of_birth_from_Karen's_biography: should we remove this poet's reliably-sourced year of birth because her friend says she is "uncomfortable" with it? I've replied fairly negatively, but thought I'd best check here as I'm not familiar with such requests. PamD 20:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Generally, we often give special consideration to subjects who request their birthdate be removed, and will often remove a full birthdate from an article upon the subject's request, because with identity theft and whatnot, it is considered a privacy issue by many, and we respect that. In such cases, we would generally use just the year instead. In this case, all we have is the year, and there is not as much of a privacy concern for that, at least from our perspective, but there may be some unforeseen reason the subject feels it is, and I would at least try to treat that with some weight and respect.

The thing about birthdates is, it's really just statistical data, not much different from height, weight, eye color, favorite cereal, etc. Albeit, nice info to have when we can get it, nine out of ten times it really adds no useful information that the reader absolutely needs in order to understand the subject. In other words, most of the time the article will read just the same without it, so that's another thing to weigh. In some cases it's necessary to distinguish between people with the same name, but the question I would ask myself is, is the date really necessary or can we do without it? To help, BLPPRIVACY says that a birthdate should be found in multiple sources, which as I read it means not one, not a couple, not even a few, but multiple sources, such that we can reasonably infer that the subject is ok with us publishing it too. (If they did, at some point we'd expect they they would've contacted those sources and asked for the date to be redacted, which any good RS will do upon request.)

So, in deciding this, I would have to weigh all those factors against each other and see which way the scale tips. It may be best to leave it, omit it, or simply narrow it own to a decade, such as the 1960s. However, the other issue we have is that the request comes not from the subject, but from some anonymous person claiming to be a friend, so that adds a whole new level of iffiness to the whole equation. I suppose in this case I would want to hear it directly from the subject before making any decision. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Ageism is definitely something that happens. I can imagine that the subject of a BLP looking for employment, romance, or an audience might not want it known that they are in their late 50s, etc. I have no idea whether this might apply in this case, but it should be considered in general. So, yes, I think there can be significant privacy concerns even for year-only birthdates. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The year seems ok per WP:DOB. We can remove it per WP:BLPKIND policy, it's editorial discretion where to draw the line in this case. I'm ok with removing it as a courtesy, but redacting is to far IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Coco Lee

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.

---

Hi there. I’m not familiar with the procedure but I guess this is probably the right place to address the issue. Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Competence_is_required, the article’s talk page, and the page’s history. Thanks! (missing signature for Dustfreeworld (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2023‎)

Hi Dustfreeworld. Wasn't sure which one of you I was talking to at first. I get a much better idea of the dispute from the history than from either of those other two pages, but I do declare, that is quite a lot of history to go through. My suggestion when coming to boards like this is to try as clearly and concisely as possible explain what the problem is from your perspective, so we can go into it knowing what we're looking for. Remember, we're new to this dispute, so explain it like you're talking to a newcomer.

The first thing I will note to everyone involved is that potential BLP violations should be removed from the article and not be restored until there is consensus to do so, not the other way around. With BLPs, it's far better to err on the side of caution, even if other parties feel (maybe rightfully so) that the info should be there, we need to reach a consensus before restoring it.

Next, the article needs a lot of work to make it read like an encyclopedia article. Currently, it's more like part bio and part gossip column. I get really, really nervous when I see nearly every sentence supported by 3 to 5 or more refs. In some cases, two or three concurring refs are good for info that is likely to be disputed. People often have a tendency to think the more refs the better, but too many like that actually throws up a big red-flag for synthesis. Most times a single ref can support multiple sentences, entire paragraphs or even entire sections. There is usually very little reason to to use multiple refs for a single sentence unless y'all are combining them to come to a novel conclusion Let alone multiple refs for each and every sentence. It makes the whole article look like synth, even if it's not.

Then, we seem to have a lot of really exhaustive details, especially surrounding her death and medical history. The extensive lists of medical information is worrisome in itself, because all of that needs extremely good, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, which I doubt we have there. Encyclopedias are quick reference sources, which people can use to get a quick handle on a subject without being bogged down by all the intricate details. They're not supposed to be full novellas about the subjects. We're here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The trick is being able to summarize it all into a relatively small and easily absorbed package, and in that it needs a lot of work. I don't have time for that right now, but what I would suggest is going around and viewing good articles on other celebrities, such as Kim Kardashian, and note the differences in tone, formatting, brevity, and coherence. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Dustfreeworld should not have tied ANI into this. I posted there a couple of days ago because they had not engaged in the discussion starting on September 13 about sources for the cite check that they had initiated [2][3]. In the mean time, they reverted the article and posted a template on my talk page. I understand the importance of concensus but they seemed to be ignoring good faith discussion [4]. The article's talk section is where the content and sources are being explained. Vacosea (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Vacosea, please stop your continual and deliberate false accusations, which I perceived as libelspersonal attacks. And please note that, as you have already been told (and you seem to be ignoring), potential BLP violations should be removed from the article immediately per WP:BLP. For those who want to know the truth, please see the reply I posted at ANI. Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld I'm going to reiterate what I said on WP:ANI here: do not use words like libel towards other editors on Wikipedia, as that can be considered a violation of No Legal Threats. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely no legal threats here. I’m not billionaire and definitely won’t spend money to take legal action on this kind of things ;) I’m just describing my feelings. Perhaps I should say “personal attacks” instead? --Dustfreeworld (talk) 17:45, 28 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.

Allan R. Bomhard

 Courtesy link: Allan R. Bomhard Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:32, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Nature of dispute: I have had a biographical entry on Wikipedia going back at least to 2004. Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. That is to say, for the better part of two decades, no one questioned my scholarly credentials or the content of my biographical entry. Then, for no apparent reason, my biographical entry recently got changed. The earlier version was a short, FACTUAL description. The current version, however, is no longer factual. Instead, it is a rather biased, unflattering OPINION. I have requested that the earlier version (with some minor updates) be RESTORED. For details, please see the lengthy “talk” section associated with the entry, which appears to have reached an impasse. Consequently, I am resorting to the dispute resolution process to resolve this issue. I feel that this is important, not only for restoring the factual content of my own biographical entry, but also for Wikipedia itself. If this can happen here, it can happen elsewhere and to others, thus affecting the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole and raising the question as to whether Wikipedia can still be seen as a reliable, unbiased resource. Thank you. Allan R. Bomhard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbomhard (talk • contribs) 17:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

See WP:DRN, where this discussion was moved from. NotAGenious (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The version of Allan R. Bomhard that Arbomhard prefers is an unsourced BLP. It was taken to AfD for that reason. The current version uses sources that meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability to describe Bomhard's scholarly contributions; the existence of these sources is what saved the article from deletion. The current version also omits the biographical details from the version that Arbomhard prefers, not because anyone wishes to suppress those details, but because we have no sources for them. If Arbomhard wishes any of those details to be restored, all we need is for reliable publications sourcing them to be supplied.

If Arbomhard also wishes to suppress the scholarly published criticism of his work, that is a different issue. We also have many other published scholarly works by others about Bomhard's work that are listed in the article but not really used for its content (the reviews of his books). It is possible that our article's description of his work could benefit from expansion based on these other works, but Arbomhard might not like the result, as the ones I checked were somewhat negative.

It is important here to keep in mind that, especially for topics that might be considered WP:FRINGE, neutrality does not mean the suppression of all opinions; it means accurately reporting the consensus of mainstream opinion. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

A dispute about this BLP is also pending at WP:ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#COI_editor_Arbomhard. I advised bringing the issue about this BLP here, and advised waiting rather than filing at WP:ANI. One editor took my advice, and another ignored it; that is the way it is. I will point out that in Wikipedia a short description is only considered FACTUAL when it is attributed to reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

User:Arbomhard - You want the old version of your biography restored, but it was removed because it is unsourced. Can you provide sources that will support a version of your biography that is essentially the same as the previous version, but is sourced? If so, that can be considered. If not, not. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can be more positive: with reliable sources, all of the material Arbomhard wants restored is non-problematic and can be included. The problematic part is that Arbomhard is requesting reversion of the entire article to that version, leaving only the biographical material and removing the criticism of his scholarship. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Come on, David. A biographical entry should be just that. Criticism of my work on Nostratic properly belongs in the Wikipedia entry on Nostrattic (together with positive comments by qualified linguists). And yes, there is plenty of criticism to go around. I have always welcomed feedback, both positive and negative, and I have always tried to address concerns in subsequent versions of my work on Nostratic. Arbomhard (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

@Arbomhard: Robert McClenon & David Eppstein are right in saying that you need to provide reliable sources for any information that you want to add to the article, and I have nothing more to add on that point. I do think it is worth explaining, however, that you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works when you write that Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades. Wikipedia articles are never finalised: they are always open to change and improvement. The fact that nobody edited the article in nearly 20 years does not mean that it was fixed in that state forever; most articles which have not been substantively edited since 2004 are bad by the standards of 2023 Wikipedia and are in dire need of change! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Please refer to the "talk" section under my biographical entry, where I clearly demonstrate the bias involved in the current version of my biographical entry, and I have demonstrated that the sources cited in the current version unequivocally do NOT (!) "meet Wikipedia's standards for reliability" -- one in particular is quoted out of context and attributed to someone who is neither a linguist nor a Nostraticist, though it is claimed that he is. It is both hypocritical and an embarassment, to put it bluntly, to hold this up as an example of "reliably sourced" information and then criticize me for not providing "reliably sourced" information to back up the claims made in the earlier version of my biographical entry. Moreover, I have offered to supply "reliably sourced" corroboration of the statements made in the earlier version (the one I prefer) of my biographical entry, but no one has yet stated what is actually required. I have also pointed out that my life is an open book and that any required sources are already freely available on the Internet. Check the information about me on E. J. Brill's web site, for example. I do not wish to suppress any published criticism of my work -- most of it is already freely available on the Internet anyway. However, I do object to the fact that supportive reviews of my work were not also included! This gives a very distorted picture, to say the least (for details, see the most recent additions to the "talk" section under my biographical entry). I agree that nothing is "fixed forever", and I have myself suggested several minor changes to bring the earlier entry up to date. I stated a fact when I claimed that "Once that entry got finalized, it remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades". This can hardly be disputed. When I said "got finalized", I was referring to the fact that there were very early versions of my biographical entry that were modified to the version that remained essentially unchanged for the better part of two decades, Arbomhard (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

That a problem (an unsourced article) persisted for a long time (two decades) does not mean we can then never fix the problem. You can read about our sourcing requirements at WP:RS. You can list any sourcing that meets that standard at Talk:Allan R. Bomhard - either to support biographical details or to reference views of your work. If you do so, you should do so without focusing on other editors or attacking them - such attacks are a violation of our policies (WP:NPA). You're being extended leeway here because you're new and we know that changes to a biography can be upsetting to a subject, but there is a limit. MrOllie (talk) 15:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. That is helpful. Arbomhard (talk) 16:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

As instructed, I have added links to reliable source material on the Internet on the talk page accompanying my biographical entry. As an aside, you are correct, I am new to this. It is not my intention to be rude, only to rectify what I see as an injustice (bias), and, yes, it is very frustrating when I try to correct that injustice and am met with resistence (what I have called "roadblocks"), some valid, some not so valid. Please let me know what else I can do. And, as I becoeme increasingly familiar with Wikipedia's protocols and requirements, including behavioral requirements, I will try to respect those requirements, though I may need a little help and patience here. I apologize if I have offended anyone. Arbomhard (talk) 17:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi

Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Can someone take a look at this and tell me if it looks entirely like a commissioned PR job to them as well? We've had plenty of those from that part of the world and looking at the article's history it looks like it has, for years, remained an unreferenced mess of weasel words and puffery to make an oligarch look like the second coming of Jesus Christ, with regular additions/removals/changes made by SPAs. I don't have time to try to fix the article (I could just butcher it, but it would be less than ideal), but if anyone could confirm my suspicions and, at the very least, put some appropriate tags and remove the more egregious bits, that would be a huge upgrade over what we have now. Ostalgia (talk) 07:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Fixing it would require a cleaver. There's almost nothing that can be remedied without blanking. Instead of treating this as a WP:BLP problem, have you considered WP:AFD? If you'll AfD, I'd advise not butchering. But if you won't, then by all means, your gripe requires you to use the cleaver. I've watched the article and will support if necessary. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:43, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleksandr Yaroslavskyi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after all. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Tarique Rahman

The two Wikipedia articles Tarique Rahman and A. Q. M. Badruddoza Chowdhury are wrongly pointing out that Tarique Rahman was the President of Bangladesh. No such references and citations exist either online or in hard copy either as this is a factually wrong information. Tarique Rahman was never the President of Bangladesh. 12:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

This was a recent unexplained change made by an IP user; I have reverted it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Banjska attack misinformation: Serb casualties

In the Banjska attack article infobox it says "6-10 killed" on the Serbian side but this is not true. It is based on outdated info and rumors and speculations.

Citation number 1 says: "Four Serbs killed" This report from Radio Free Europe says that reports of a fourth attacker dead were incorrect.

Citation number 2 says 8 killed from "police sources" but it was as the event was happening (September 24)

Citation number 3 is from a Serbian lawyer's tweet in which he predicts there might be 7 to 10 killed (September 25)

The most up to date information from reliable sources all state that three Serbs were killed (and one Kosovo police officer):

From France 24 28 September: "Three Serb gunmen were killed in an hours-long firefight with Kosovo police"

From Reuters 28 September: "Three attackers and a Kosovo Albanian police officer were killed in the skirmishes."

From the Associated Press 29 September: "Kosovo police on Friday raided several locations in a Serb-dominated area of the country’s north, where weekend violence left one Kosovo police officer and three Serb insurgents dead"

From Deutsche Welle 29 September: "In the ensuring firefight with Kosovar security forces, three attackers were killed"

And there many more sources which can be found saying that just by googling.

Please someone help fix this incorrect information. I would do it myself but article is blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:6C2:86A:DDD:52BA:10FE:4EFF (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Banjska attack is the proper place to present this evidence and make your case. Cullen328 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Duane Davis (gangster)

Recently in the news for obvious reasons. I am concered regarding inclusion of allegations by Davis that Sean Combs/Diddy ordered the hit on Tupac prominently in the lead of the article, which are not included at all in the Murder of Tupac Shakur article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I don’t understand why it is not included in that article, it is not libellous, nor a biography of a living person so doesn’t need to be substantiated, and there are plenty of sources, including reliable media coverage Alexanderkowal (talk) 09:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLP does not just apply to articles that are directly about a living or recently deceased person. It also applies wherever living people are mentioned, even if the article is not about them. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:40, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Sean Combs and Duane Davis (gangster) are living persons. The policy on verifiability is non-negotiable, so that anything in Wikipedia needs to be substantiated. If there are plenty of reliable sources, find one that is suitable for coverage of living persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Proper application of WP policies to Kevin Sorbo article?

A talk page discussion with one other editor, @Ramos1990, is approaching an impasse with respect to what content meets threshold-eligibility criteria for inclusion in an article on the public figure, actor Kevin Sorbo.

I have not edited the article itself, and I do not believe they have edited it since the beginning of our discussion. Everything has been civil and the whole discussion can be found at Talk:Kevin_Sorbo#No_politics?.

This editor's history more than demonstrates (to my satisfaction, at least) that they are here to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. I hope that my own history demonstrates the same.

My concern, as you will find detailed in the talk page, is that this editor is relying upon what I think is a misinterpretation of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP in order to selectively exclude unflattering information about the subject—including even positions the subject has publicly professed and which have also been reported by independent media.

I link to their short edit history in our discussion.

Information added by third parties and supported by good sources that this editor has removed include two allegations of sexual misconduct, public efforts to undermine medical consensus on vaccines during a pandemic, and a public effort to present the breach of the U.S. Capitol as a false-flag operation.

The idea that such public positions are categorically excluded from Wikipedia on the grounds that Sorbo is notable only as an actor (who is not running for office—their example) seems to me a strong misreading of the relevant Wikipedia guidelines.

We would both be grateful for any input from a third party more knowledgeable about the relevant policies governing biographies of living persons.

Many thanks for your consideration –

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to add some context. The content under discussion is not being "selective" but that some editors (usually IPs) are adding content that is seemingly for defamatory purposes only such as that Sorbo was somehow against vaccination when in reality he himself was vaccinated. Other strong accusations require strong sourcing (which other editors reverted through the years by the way), not weak sourcing. Wikipedia entries should be encyclopedic - not everything online about a person belongs on wikipedia - this is respected in general for many biographies of other public figures. Much of the issue revolves around sources that react to tweets or barely mention Sorbo, not comprehensive sources. Ramos1990 (talk) 05:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not going to look into this myself but to state the obvious, some anti-vaxers have received at least some vaccinations themselves. Anti-vaxers include people with a wide variety of unscientific believes about vaccinations from complete opposition to a variety of unscientific claims about certain vaccinations or vaccination components. So if Kevin Sorbo has received some vaccinations this probably should be mentioned if sourced but it doesn't mean he isn't anti-vaccination. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to share on this board the one comment this post has elicited on the article talk page:

Thanks for the post on the noticeboard.

I agree with Ramos1990, Emir of Wikipedia, Ponyo, and Blablubbs on the sexual misconduct removal for very poor sourcing and potential WP:SYN on one of them. Much stronger sources are needed and I could not find any online. No issues were ever raised legally or seriously by either women. No recent updates at all on this either. WP:BLPREMOVE applies here.

In terms of the politics stuff, it does not seem like much of the content is relevant to the article. Much of the sources revolve around commenting on Sorbo's tweets - which can be taken out of context and slanted by any source. I agree with Ramos1990 in that not everything that is published on a person belongs on Wikipedia. His views on vaccines are not relevant anymore. The pandemic is gone and since he did get vaccinated to do filming in another country, it makes no sense to use Wikipedia to spread such content per WP:BLPGOSSIP.

In terms of political views, everyone has one and everyone has an opinion on every topic. But that does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia. It can be challenged and removed either way since it is true that political affiliations do change and is a private matter. Even if reliable sources exist, that does not mean it belongs in the biography of a person. From what I looked at, Sorbo is barely mentioned in passing on the source for CPAC and for the other stuff like his opinion on the vaccine stuff, it is all based on his tweets and end up being opinion pieces than true journalism. These are not news. I am sure you can find actors commenting on almost any topic from natural disasters to political candidates especially through twitter, but much of this is not relevant to the biography and requires higher quality journalism than opinion pieces.

We should really strive for better sourcing and better relevance when controversial matters are being considered on a biography page. We do not want Wikipedia to contribute to defamation or misinforming about an individual if we can avoid it. It should contain neutral content too.desmay (talk) 19:37, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The pandemic isn't over or gone but either way whether it's over is largely irrelevant to anything. If Kevin Sorbo was spreading nonsense about vaccines and this was well covered in reliable secondary sources then this is likely something we should mention no matter what's going on with COVID-19. Also as I said before, the fact Sorbo eventually got vaccinated is largely irrelevant. In fact, if Sorbo was trying to kill people with his tweets, and then got vaccinated himself for work; this if anything may be an even greater reason why sources may call him out for it. Ultimately the key thing that matters is coverage in reliable secondary sources.

Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per WP:UNDUE. But if it's well covered in reliable secondary sources, especially secondary sources from after those tweets indicating long term significance, then yes this is something we're likely to cover since it's no longer WP:UNDUE as reflected in the sources. No matter whether people want to believe nonsense about the pandemic being over or eventually getting vaccinated somehow excuses any harm Sorbo did to others by his tweets.

One thing I would agree one is we do need quality sources. Looking at this [5], the sourcing for the vaccine thing was Huffington Post which isn't a great source for this kind of thing, and appears to be from the time of the event so a double whammy.

But I noticed something else there. We included some nonsense Sorbo talked about Hollywood disliking christians sourced only to Fox News, a source known to be problematic for politics which this clearly is. I looked some more and found further nonsense sourced to Daily Express. WTH? I can understand why the OP has concerns when people are removing stuff sourced to La Times while leaving stuff sourced to Fox News and Daily Express! A cleanup of all nonsense in the article may help reduce the OP's concerns. I removed the two obvious standouts but I expect there is more.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Nil Einne,

Thanks for chiming in! However, if material sourced to Fox News and the Huffington Post is not up to standard, then about 80% of the article needs to be deleted. (See Kevin_Sorbo#References.) He's just not famous enough to be covered by mainstream news outlets. But in some circles, at least, his social media presence is considered notable. Would something like this [6] from the Daily Beast be enough of a source to establish that?

My proposal was to include the (to many people) unflattering information repeatedly removed by other editors on the grounds that this is at least as notable and sourced as the other material, rather than to remove everything not sourced to major media outlets. As far as the NYTimes, the AP, or NPR are concerned, Sorbo is basically a non-entity. But I'm assuming this does not matter to folks who non-accidentally find themselves at his Wikipedia bio.

For background, the reason I went to the article was to see why Sorbo was hired as a spokesperson for an advertisement aired multiple times on the right-leaning Rumble's livestream of the second GOP primary debate. The article did not answer that, but a news search on his name turned up and abundance of material that did. Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [7] or at the search engine of your choice.

I would welcome further comments from you or anyone else on how best to approach this.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne - "Sorbo is only really noted as an actor rather than for any medical expertise, so there's less reason to add other random crap he said, no matter how harmful per WP:UNDUE." The sources being used should be much higher quality and should explicitly detail, not just mention some any effects of his random tweets. No reliable source has claimed that his tweets are doing damage to the public. That would be an interesting piece indeed. I have not not seen one that does such a thing. Most are op-ed or poorly written non-journalism articles. He generally does not make a splash in the headlines. And WP:UNDUE does apply here. We need higher quality sources than just random little articles showing tweet wars. In general tweet and tweet-related articles are a very poor sources for wikipeida. It is not even journalism and look very amateurish and sloppy. Since Patrick Welsh kind of confirmed that - "Pretty much all of the coverage, though, is in tabloids or highly partisan sources. See, e.g., the results here [31] or at the search engine of your choice." then, per WP:NOTDIARY we should weigh the relevance of material being presented as it says "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary." Ramos1990 (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Ramos1990,

Thanks for continuing to follow this! Would you mind elaborating your views on what, in this case, counts as an adequately good source? Because, as I state above, the standard that @Nil Einne suggests would require deleting almost all of the article, which I think would be a disservice to readers.

I am fine either way, but the standard should be consistent between positive and negative coverage with respect to do or undo coverage. After all, that he consistently tweets the way that he does is not (I don't think!) in dispute. (Just see [8] and jump around in the history as you please.)

Tweeting vaccine misinformation to 1.8 million followers very possibly has lead to easily avoidable deaths. I do not think, however, that the article should speculate on this. Readers can make their own connections.

Finally, it is important to distinguish using Twitter as a source (which it almost never should be) and reporting on statements (or a pattern thereof) made by a public figure on the Twitter/X platform.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Andrea Montanino

• Andrea Montanino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page is poorly reference and clearly self promotional — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.151.195 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Simon Hooper

During the Tottenham v Liverpool football match 30/9/2023 someone edited this man's page to put abusive language about him in Polish. What initially shocked me was that they originally referred to him as a Jewish referee although that word was quickly removed by somebody.

I haven't edited this page because I believe Wikipedia should see the abuse and find out who the offender was and take very strong action against them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trevorius (talk • contribs) 17:42, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The vandalism has been cleaned up but this article still isn’t acceptable, as about 80 percent of it is devoted to two controversial incidents he’s been involved with during the current season, which is WP:UNDUE for someone who’s been a top class referee for five years. There ought to be other material in reliable sources that could be used to make it more balanced. Neiltonks (talk) 12:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT and QAnon-adjacent POV at James Gordon Meek

The current state of this article speaks for itself. The person covered in it is a former senior journalist from ABC News who was recently prosecuted and convicted for child pornography charges (see here). The article is now littered with irrelevant factoids, QAnon-adjacent dog-whistles and unreliable sources, including two explicitly pro-Pizzagate sources (a Infowars video and a Evie Magazine piece).

Some issues I've noticed:

• The article HEAVILY implies that Meek commited multiple sex crimes other than the ones he was convicted for (precisely, he pleaded guilty one count of sharing and another of possessing child pornography; he was never convicted for anything other than that). This is a WP:SUSPECT violation.
• The article suggests that the FBI was aware of Meek's criminal activities since 2016 and did nothing, even though none of the sources support this claim. This is probably a WP:Hoax.
• The current version of the body is so detailed that it reads more like an amateur detective novel than a well-summarized encyclopedic article. You can delete 80% of the "Investigation, Arrest, Conviction" section and nothing valuable would be lost.
• The article is filled with WP:CitationOverkills, blatantly unreliable sources (Twitter posts, statements from the prosecution, court documents, explicitly pro-Pizzagate publications, etc.) and original research.

A talk page discussion here was opened to address some of those issues, but the discussion went nowhere.

Some QAnon diffs:

• user @Virginia Courtsesan adds WP:INFOWARS's Rumble account [9], as well as a pro-Pizzagate Evie Magazine piece [10], as sources to the article to subtly make the point that Meek was an anti-Pizzagate journalist from "mainstream media" ABC News. In reality, this claim was debunked by Reuters.

• a news article is used out of context to make the statement that Meek was "either being aligned with - or turning a blind eye to - a shadowy world of ill-doings among the D.C. political elites".[11]
• this edit SYNTHs up the statement that Meek's alleged crimes were being covered up by unnamed people, using Twitter as one of the sources. The same edit also implies that Meek had meetings with "important people" set up by someone called George Nader.[12] Just like the previous diff, none of this is relevant to the actual facts of the matter and only works to promote the Pizzagate "sex-trafficking elite" talking point.

All of those diffs echo talking points directly associated with the QAnon conspiracy theory. I tried to remove the conspiracy stuff from the article, but Virginia Courtsesan (who wrote 63% of this article and is responsible for all of the diffs shown above) reverted me. SparklyNights 01:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, after Sparkly threatened to ban me (not an admin, of course) it seems he's intent on misrepresenting matters. I'm very much anti-QAnon and anti-conspiracy, the Rumble/Infowars link was only provided in the sentence dealing with the fact misinformation had been spread about Meek's case, necessitating major outlets like Reuters to fact-check it. Wikipedia was thus used to help prevent the misinformation. Absolutely nothing was being presented as true and sourced to Infowars or anything remotely Pizzagate-y or conspiracy, I'd be the first to raise complaint if I noticed something like that. I removed the link when asked (though I still maintain that where you had Tucker Carlson, Glenn Beck, Infowars and others spreading "Meek is innocent, this is a frame-up, biggest news of the year!" hyperbole...before Meek plead guilty, it's notable to link to their stories and reference the furor...while obviously making it clear their sensationalism is not relied on as fact, it's presented as a source for the viral misinformation about the case. Sparkly is pretending to present a Reuters fact-check to prove the Wiki article is incorrect, but the statement in Wiki is literally "Meek did this mild X thing, this was misrepresented in a series of viral misinformation - this was debunked by Reuters". I'm the one who put the Reuters fact-check in to prevent misinformation being spread.

I have no idea what Evie Magazine is, but I feel like classifying it as "pro-Pizzagate" is probably a false smear - a quick glance at https://www.allsides.com/news-source/evie-magazine-media-bias shows it is ranked the same as the Wall Street Journal as "leans right", not even "right", muchless conspircy/far-right (but again, I've never heard of it before this). Again, I'd already removed the link as per a Talk Page discussion, before Sparkly came here to make his accusations (though again, I feel the link was used appropriately and raise an eyebrow at seeing Sparkly's definition of the magazine, since a search on Google for Pizzagate+Evie+Magazine turns up no results suggesting his accusation is true on a glance).

I'm accused of WP:HOAX by this author for a statement which, if he were to look at the links on the page, is reported by the Department of Justice without any other source ever contradicting it (but since it's a primary source it can't be used as the footnote-citation per Wiki standards)....to claim this is a "hoax" is bordering on bad-faith ad hominem attack.

The article is only 25% the length at which we need to consider whether it is too long and detailed, it literally consists of only two parts. "Meek's Career" and "Later investigation, charges, conviction". While Sparkly insists that Meek hasn't personally given a jailhouse interview confirming some details, it's notable that he hasn't denied them even in the legal process.

Can every article use work to clean up language to be more perfectly neutral, sure - but this is hardly what Sparkles claims it to be. Coming into the article for the first time threatening that he is going to ban users who disagree with him, suggests an unwillingness to speak rationally. A glance at the talk-page shows I'm engaging with another user there and working to help ensure everything is neutrally-phrased and tidying up language to ensure it's clear that we only mention the misinformation because the misinformation was itself notable to the case, multiple articles were written about Rolling Stone's efforts to deceive, etc.

Claiming "statements from the prosecution" cannot be used, even when the Prosecution obviously secured a conviction/guilty plea and the statements are those being quoted in the Washington Post...seems again like a bad-faith misrepresentation of matters.

Claiming "A talk page issue was raised but discussion went nowhere" is a misrepresentation of the fact he literally first touched the article, and talk page, four hours before coming here to claim it's all "going nowhere". Meek was sentenced yesterday, I understand new people are seeing the article and have strong opinions - I welcome them all and all positive contributions on the article's talk page. But threats to ban me, then reporting me to BLP when I tell him to restrain the threats and focus on positive conversation, is thinly-veiled at best.

Tellingly, the user has made literally zero suggestions of how things could be re-phrased or re-worked to ensure there's no accidental misunderstandings by readers, or to ensure nothing negative about a living person is used inappropriately. He has simply deleted 80% of the article and come here to say we can delete 80% of the article and not lose anything he considers of value. But a neutral walk through Meek's beginnings, his motivations described by himself, his work - are all intended to offer balance and show how, the words of the judge (not quoted since only in primary documents), even heroes fall. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

What i left you was a WP:WARNING, that does not imply that I was going to ban you. Users who are not admins can give others warnings, including warnings that mention that the warned user might get blocked.

About Evie Magazine's article, this is what it said: "interesting how the people who vehemently criticize any initiatives that raise awareness of child sex trafficking seem to possess questionable moral traits. (...) Considering Meek worked with the government, and with the news of the new bill to conceivably broaden the definition of 'sexual orientation,' it's possible Pizzagate isn't far-fetched at all." There is no ambiguity here, this is a pro-Pizzagate piece.

Plus, the statement that was sourced by you with the infowars source does not state that there was any misinformation related to Meek's works related to Pizzagate. What it implies, without any ambiguity, is that it was ironic how this anti-Pizzagate journalist turned out to be a target of a sex crime investigation. The pro-conspiracy tone is obvious here. SparklyNights 01:50, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The statement is "In 2017 Meek wrote an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to "the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention with exaggerated suggestions Meek had said much more", I do not think that can possibly be read as pro-conspiracy or presenting that it's ironic how an anti-pizzagate journalist was convicted of whatever...it addresses the fact there was notable viral misinformation which exaggerated a single sentence Meek had once written. If you can think of a better way to phrase the same information, I'm certainly open to seeing it written more bluntly or whatever. That's material for the talk page, or be bold and add your improvement to make sure nobody else draws the same (erroneous) conclusion you've drawn from reading the sentence. Again, Evie Magazine and Infowars were only linked as having gone viral for their exaggerated claims, followed immediately by the link to the Reuters fact-check showing it was a gross exaggeration of what he'd actually said. (and they were removed per talk page discussion anyways, before you made this complaint - again you only found the article four hours ago, maybe give it a little time to engage with the various editors on the talk page and offer your suggestions other than just calling for tremendous amounts of deletion. I'd love to see a list of say, five sentences you think are problematic, and how you think they would be better phrased or whatever...on the talk page. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 01:57, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The actual full quote of what you wrote, as shown here, is: "In 2017 Meek wrote an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to 'the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory', which drew viral attention after his guilty plea to judge Claude Hilton." The quote you provided was the version you edited AFTER I complained about your edits. Again, the obvious insinuation here is that this "mainstream media" journalist who hated Pizzagate turned out to be a bad person himself. That's what any normal person reads when they see this article. I believe you should just admit that what you did was wrong and move on, there is no hope in defending any of this. SparklyNights 02:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I literally edited it when you said you read it as pro-conspiracy, to make it more clear it wasn't meant that way - it was meant to be debunking the claim which doubtless leads readers to the Wiki article to see if it's true that Meek "claimed he had debunked Pizzagate", etc. You said you read something into my wording that I certainly hadn't intended to be read into it, I promptly changed the wording to be more clear so nobody else would make the same assumption you'd made. That's...handled appropriately. Then AFTER that, you came here to claim nothing was being done and claiming it was a pro-Pizzagate article and accusing me of writing a hoax, etc. I'm trying to be reasonable - and I certainly admit that if my earlier writing of the sentence led you to interpret it as pro-conspiracy, rather than anti-conspiracy, then I was wrong in my wording. Good thing I changed it as soon as it was pointed out you read it as meaning the opposite of what was intended? I mean you could write an entire paragraph about the stupid fake screenshot people are sharing that spreads misinformation, and media's efforts to fact-check it...but I think it might be WP:UNDUE in that case. It merits a sentence that explains what Meek DID say, that conspiracies emerged afterward saying Meek claimed far more than that, and that Reuters is clear it's a gross exaggeration/misinformation. If you can put all of that into a more succinct sentence, I'd be happy to see it, honestly. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 02:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you had made another pro-Pizzagate edit to the Pizzagate page. The edit stated "In 2023, attention was drawn to the fact disgraced ABC News senior producer James Gordon Meek had written an article about Russian disinformation wherein he referred to "the debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory", which drew viral attention after his guilty plea for child sex offences." Can you point out why you wrote that?SparklyNights 03:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Exact same reason, if I am mis-using the word "viral" to mean "misinformation" as you claim I am, and I have corrected it to be in-line with suggested improved language - why are you still here? I maintain it is viral and/or misinformation and/or disinformation - Reuters agrees with that. Obviously there are thousands of people who are sharing the nonsense "James Meek claimed he debunked Pizzagate, but he was convicted!" but the effort is to use the Wikipedia article to show all that Meek said is "X" in an article on Date Y, but that people then took it viral...and include the Reuters fact-check as a footnote to it. I really do not understand the problem, and I especially do not understand it where it was corrected and re-worded the first time someone said they had read/misread it as endorsing the viral information. Can we shake hands and stop bickering? I'll be the first to apologize, I'm sorry. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'd note that starting off with a long post tends to make it difficult to receive much attention on most noticeboards, but if you then follow this up with an even longer back and forth between the existing editors, you've made it even less likely you'll received any useful help. However briefly, I'd have to disagree that it's a WP:SUSPECT violation to report that someone was accused of multiple other crimes but in the end their plea deal was for a lesser crime. It's a very common part of the plea deal process that the prosecutor may agree to only prosecute a limited number of crimes. The key issue is whether these other accusations were covered sufficiently in reliable secondary sources. Especially if they were covered in reliable secondary sources at the time of conviction or after the conviction; or if they were discussed in court as part of the plea deal as reported in reliable secondary sources. Also if the suspect was initially charged with more crimes but these were dropped as part of the plea deal then this normally should be reported if well covered in reliable secondary sources. Meek also seems likely to be a public figure (award winning journalist) Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Also I'd say feel free to remove anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources. If an editor reverts such removals, you can ask for them to be blocked or topic banned for a BLP violation. Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As probably my final comment on this matter, I will say that if all you have is a fact check, it's likely unnecessary to present something which allegedly went "viral" on conspiracy theorist websites or other unreliable sources especially on a biography article just to debunk it. The only chance it could make sense is if it's widely reported in reliable secondary sources in relation to the subject that such claims went viral. Nil Einne (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything sourced exclusively to court documents or other unacceptable primary sources, the only "primary sources" used are in the "Career" portion not the "Crime" portion, as there's an attempt to avoid the article being overly weighted toward the crime...so Meek's position and actions on the House Committee are lifted from House.gov, his early career is from his own online bio on his own website, etc...nothing that the subject of the article would mind. The only facts on the WP article about the crimes should all be sourced to, typically multiple, reliable secondary sources. Virginia Courtsesan (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Well that's not correct. I just removed some excerpts from court documents images that someone thought was acceptable in a BLP. Whoever did this should be topic banned if they ever try it again. Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

BTW, while not as serious a BLP violation, it's very unlikely there is any reason to include any thing about his position or actions if the only source is some House Committee document. If no one else cares about whatever this was, then nor do we. Nil Einne (talk) Nil Einne (talk) 04:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is a mess, and clearly not acceptable per WP:BLP policy. Sourcing is suspect, even from a quick look (e.g. citing ghbase.com, a Ghanaian tabloid website, for a story with no connection to Ghana [13], or the highly-questionable use of a YouTube channel [14] for what appears to be allegations about a Rolling Stone editor), padded with non-consequential trivia (e.g. Meek writing a letter to a newspaper: removed here [15]) and making thoroughly misappropriate use of sources (see e.g. here, [16] where I've removed what is blatant synthesis, turning a comment about Meeks career in intelligence into supposed commentary on the crimes). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:02, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

 Administrator note This subject is now being discussed at ANI. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy ping @AndyTheGrump, @Nil Einne, @SparklyNights, @Virginia Courtsesan. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Irakli Garibashvili

This isn't to report a BLP violation per se, but there's a dispute at Talk:Irakli_Garibashvili#Should_the_lead_image_be_changed?, and reversion levels in the associated article that aren't past 3RR yet, but with four users, including myself involved, it would be good for a 100% uninvolved party to come in and douse some water on the situation. Cheers, Edward-Woodrow • talk 12:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Dario del Bufalo

• Dario del Bufalo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is poorly sourced, with several claims not backed up by realiable and independent sources and it seems self-promotional. Its relevance should also be considered. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.42.221.81 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Simon Ekpa

• Simon Ekpa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Apparently this person has claims a nationality of a "government in exile" ([17], [18]) and a lot of users are commenting on the article's talk page asking for it to be changed. I am uncertain how to proceed. Do we allow self-identification of nationality or do we adhere to government documents! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

TBH I'm not sure his G in E is more than a website (it may be). But according to WP, a G in E is "a political group that claims to be a..." so it's not a high bar. I don't think nationality is something we generally do self-identification on. Also, not sure it's a lot of users, as in several people. The article has had some socking issues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

My general view is that people there are conflating two different things. Nationality simply refers to what nation a person is from, that is, where they are native to. "Nation" is more related to a specific land and its people than any government, per the definition. "Nation - (n.) a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It comes from the Latin nat, meaning "born", combined with the Latin suffix -tion, which alters it to mean the place or state where someone comes from. It let's the reader pinpoint the land on a map, but it's not an indication of any particular governmental affiliation. (This may be one of those things where the subtleties of the English language are being lost in translation. Non-native speakers of a language typical interpret things very literally, so maybe explaining it clearer will help.) Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

MOS:NATIONALITY says that "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted", so an editorial decision could be made to omit Ekpa's nationality given that he apparently rejects it. I have no opinion on whether it should be omitted. I'm pretty sure that his nationality shouldn't be listed as Biafran given that Biafra ceased to exist 15 years before he was born. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. I see no reason why it has to be included, except it gives the readers more insight into a person if they can look up the land and culture they come from. I guess it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons at that point, which is best done by involved editors. I was just thinking that if people on the talk page were to think of it in terms of the land and people that he is native to (nation/native both come from the same meaning), then they may not object as much. It just sounds silly to say he's a native of a government. For example, I am a native Alaskan (not to be confused with an Alaska Native), which by definition makes me an American native (not to be confused with Native American, although in fact my grandma was Native American). The U.S. of America is simply the land and people I come from, so American is my nationality. Doesn't mean I support Biden or Trump, or even statehood for that matter. (Puerto Rico and Guam were probably smart to have stayed territories, but what is, is.) Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Dear extinguished editors,

It has become an established concept right from historical facts that a government-in-exile exercises full legal rights as a country but then, in Exile and shall one day return to their native country regaining full formal power. I implore everyone of us to make a little research here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_exile) Now, in the case of Biafra, it existed during 1967-70 civil war but aftermath, formed a government-in-exile called "Biafra Republic Government in Exile" as clearly stated on Wikipedia's definition of G-I-N

To explain further, Simon Ekpa have long denounced Nigeria as his Nationality. See one of the sources back in 2021: (https://punchng.com/ipob-ex-nigerian-athlete-simon-ekpa-to-return-medal-gives-reasons/) This declaration of his automatically cleared every doubt on his nationality issue that we're currently solving here. He doesn't pledge allegiance to Nigeria nor does he hold Nigerian passport. Saying Simon Ekpa is a Nigerian by Nationality is more of violation of his legal rights if l may say. He denounced Nigeria openly. Check out the source above please.

Simon Ekpa have identified with Biafra Republic Government in Exile of which he's now the Prime Minister of the political organization representing Biafra as a country in Exile. I will keep saying, everyone should kindly read the definition of government-in-exile which l dropped the article link above.

I wish to clear the doubt of editors who may have the doubt that BRGIE is only on website. Check link: https://dailypost.ng/2023/07/22/ekpa-announces-biafra-self-referendum-convention/

The convention is physical and l believe it has cleared every doubt that BRGIE is only on website. They are on ground. The convention will take place in Finland on 20th-21st of October 2023. On the website also, they stated their head office located in Maryland US. The full address is there. Verify!

Sorry to have digressed a little bit. In view of the definition of government-in-exile, l hereby state unequivocally that "Biafran" can be said to be Nationality. This is to say that you don't be a national of a country you don't recognize or hold it's passport. Simon Ekpa doesn't identify as a Nigerian legally, verbally or otherwise so why put Nigerian as his Nationality? Let's consider it!

Now, to cap it all, Simon Ekpa is a Finnish Citizen. (Indisputable) He's neither a Nigerian citizen nor national. He's a Biafran by Nationality, legally, technically logically, historically and otherwise. (Indisputable) In my own honest opinion, I strongly suggest that "Nationality" parameter should be removed entirely from the article infobox if my clarifications can't convince you every editor enough that Simon Ekpa is not "Nigerian" but a "Biafran" by Nationality.

Thanks everyone. Fugabus (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Your legal theories are irrelevant here. Unless you can cite reliable sources which describe Ekpa as a Biafran national, Wikipedia is not going to describe Ekpa as a Biafran national. You may be able to convince editors that Ekpa's nationality should be omitted from the article altogether, but I'd be very surprised if you persuade anyone of anything with comments like the above. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My impression was that we're speaking specifically of the infobox here, since it's the only use of the word "nationality" in the article. I don't see us removing "born in Nigeria" etc. I'm not against removing it from the infobox, since it's a bit complicated in this case, and infoboxes suck at complicated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My emphasis lie on the fact that Ekpa and his runs a government-in-exile which claims control of Biafra that existed between 1967-70 as a country. We can't dispute that history of Biafra being a country, though formerly defunct but now officially in Exile.

I keep referencing to Wikipedia's standard definition of a government in Exile and what it means practically.

His physical presence can be seen (https://sunnewsonline.com/ekpa-declares-self-prime-minister-of-biafra/)

I also wish to opine with other editors that the Nationality parameter be removed entirely from the infobox if Biafra can't be added as his Nationality. Fugabus (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Nathan Leventhal, Bio

The photograph accompanying the above "biography" , has an error, in the description of "Southhampton",-- The photo refers to a suburb of London, England, NOT Southampton, N.Y., which it should be. This is my only attempt at "editing" ANY WIKIPEDIA entry, so I hope this gets to the correct person to correct it. I have NO affiliation to this individual, his family, nor anything this person has done, or said in his life. I simply am making a notice of an incorrect photograph, inside of a persons' history.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.132.173 (talk) 00:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC) 

Hi there, and thanks very much for bringing this to our attention. However, our article doesn't have a photo. I think what is happening is that you're seeing this on google or some other search engine. Search engines use algorithms to search for any relevant images to show the reader, but they don't always get it right and often end up showing a photo of someone completely different. Maybe there is no online photo and it just found something with a similar name. Whatever the case, we have no control over what google does, so you would have to contact them to report any problems. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Luis Moreno Ocampo

This was reverted as alleged WP:LIBEL. However, Rodney Dixon is described in Jurist as an expert in international criminal law with particular expertise in cases involving alleged genocide and crimes against humanity, having acted in cases before the ICTY, ICTR and the ICC. His several third-party sources cited here and here do support his statements.

Later, third-party sources have not corroborated Ocampo's similar weird claim of genocide during flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, most notably UNHCR, UN fact-finding mission on the ground or Russian peacekeepers in the region. Yet, there are strange regular attempts to promote Ocampo's opinion, while UN assessment gets marginalized: [19], [20]. As such, I think this could be reinstated in the article. Brandmeister^talk 12:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The source being used for Ocampo's claim is Ocampo's own webpage. In other words the report is self-published. I can't see how the the material you have added could be considered libellous. In particular, the statement "It was concluded that information that clearly undermines Ocampo's conclusions is simply left out" is not libellous afaict. Regarding the sources you have used, they are at least as suitable as the source for Ocampo's claim. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll start by saying that some context is missing from OP's thread here: as I stated in ANI, Brandmeister has cited an opinion piece by Rodney Dixon, a lawyer that Azerbaijan directly hired to help rejecting the Ocampo report,[21] to attack Ocampo's views.[22] This seems to be a WP:LIBEL violation. Ocampo was also cited in other publications [23], [24], so it's not just his webpage and I'm sure there are more.

Regarding the UN report, as it was noted by me in ANI and BilledMammal, it was misinterpreted by the OP and isn't widely covered in RS even when compared to USAID. UN delegation was also criticized directly for coming to the region only after 99% of population had fled already [25], [26]. But regardless, UN report is being discussed on the article talk and I'm not sure why the OP thought to bring it up here of all places to draw some strange parallels with Ocampo while omitting details from the article discussion. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

- If Ocampo's report is cited in reliable sources, use them rather than his own website.

- The Politico article says Azerbaijan "has hired London lawyer Rodney Dixon to write a rejection of the Moreno Ocampo report". What is the relevance of WP:libel? Dixon's statements are not invalidated by his connection to the Azerbaijan government. Include his statements and inform readers that he was hired to write a rejection of Ocampo's report.

- Presumably the reason this issue was raised here was the accusation that libel was involved. Burrobert (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Ocampo is the inaugural prosecutor of ICC, there needs to be a more WP:DUE criticism of him to be included in his article, not from a lawyer hired directly by the country Ocampo was criticizing.

Also I have no problem for libel being brought up here, my concerns are why the UN report was brought up by OP in a BLPN discussion to draw strange parallels with Ocampo while omitting important details from the article discussion about said report. - Kevo³²⁷ (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on the source used. The Jurist is likely better than most sources that get used on Wikipedia, but as a student journal a better source is probably a good idea when it comes to discussions of genocide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

There were a number of controversies concerning this person, and I'm not sure whether these were adequately covered in the article. In particular, there were reports in Der Spiegel: [27], The Financial Times: [28], The Times: [29], The Telegraph: [30], World Affairs [31], etc. Grandmaster 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Mubarak Abdullah Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah

Sheikh Mubarak Abdullah Al-Mubarak Al Sabah is alive and well. You may have confused him with another person - Sheikh Mubarak Abdullah Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.97.185 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the claim of his death for being unsourced, thanks. FossilWave (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Donal MacIntire

Self Proclaimed Criminologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.43.82 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Donal MacIntyre? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone else proclaimed, it seems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

deej fabyc

Hi I note that the University cited on this page for MFA is incorrect it is in fact the UNSW NOT USW. UNSW is in Sydney Australia USW is in Wales UK so - not even in same continent please see this link https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/entities/publication/e7263b61-b545-40cf-85a3-942d458cfd32

correction would be much appreciated Thank you Deej Fabyc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.55.206.48 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Fixed, the originally cited sources already had the correct information in them, so no need to turn to the primary source cited above. Iffy★Chat -- 16:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Ron Haffkine

my cousin died October 1, 2023. Please update to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:337:AAA9:D189:5497:590D:F00E (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh my gosh. I'm truly sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, we have to be very cautious about reporting someone's death, so we require a good, reliable source before we can do that. There is a chance that no reliable sources will report it on their own, however. My suggestion would be for you and the other family members to write an obituary and submit it to your local newspaper. Once it's published, you can bring that source here or the article's talk page and we can easily update it for you. One again, my condolences. Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This has since been added to Ron Haffkine, sourced to the Hollywood Reporter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Steve Hilton

Steve Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi editors, I am seeking opinions on this request to update a small section of the biography of political commentator Steve Hilton about the 2020 U.S. election.

The Wikipedia article says "Hilton promoted Trump's false claims of large-scale fraud," but this is not supported by the cited source, The Independent. Instead, the source quotes Hilton as saying "any evidence of fraud or irregularity should be brought forward and the court should adjudicate." Hilton also said "But when it’s this close. This important with this many late changes to the rules, of course, we should investigate them thoroughly. Not just for the sake of the win but for the sake of faith in our system." The sourcing never states Hilton supports specific election fraud claims. There is a difference between "promoting" specific fraud claims and saying that "any evidence of fraud or irregularity" should be investigated, and the Wikipedia article should faithfully represent the source material per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

In attempting an edit request to have the Wikipedia article faithfully represent the source material, a reviewing editor asked me to continue the discussion to reach consensus, which brings me here. I have a conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Steve Hilton, which is why I have not edited the article directly myself. I am happy to discuss further on the article Talk page. SKflo (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

u5 Deletion Request For Deen K. Chatterjee

This page was created by a user for financial extortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deenchat (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

That is a particularly serious allegation, and frankly, given the article creator's extensive editing history, seems somewhat implausible. If you have actual evidence to back the claim up, I suggest you contact either the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department [32] privately by email, providing full details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. If this was an attack article then I might take it seriously, but the article could not be reasonably described as an attack article in the slightest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:U5 certainly wouldn't apply, as that is for pages in "User space" (Ones that are references with User:, and usually are mainly the pages where editors explain who they are and their interests.) This item is in what we call "article space". Creating editor doesn't qualify as a "has made few or no edits outside of user pages"; it looks like there's over a decade of reasonable contribution and no history of being "blocked" for improper behavior. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As a courtesy to Dr. Chatterje (presuming it is actually him) I've nominated the article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deen K. Chatterjee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

PalmStar Media

My name is Kevin Scott Frakes. PalmStar Media is a business I started in college. I am the sole owner, operator, employee, etc. I believe the page falls under WP:BLPGROUP, as a page about a "small group or organization." The company is just me. I would like to raise the following issues for impartial editors to consider:

• The Alchemist: Wikipedia says production of the movie is "no longer happening". However, this is contradicted by the cited source, where the producers said "The issue is anticipated to be resolved in the coming days and the project back on track within weeks, potentially." There was a recent announcement about a new studio taking over the rights to get production started again and Palmstar Media will be producing it.[33]
• Legal Issues: The casual reader would see this section title and think my company is in legal trouble. However, I am the Plaintiff in both mentioned lawsuits. I think this section violates WP:CRITS, because it is dedicated to those collaboration deals where controversies arose and should be merged with the Collaboration Deals section.
• National Lampoon lawsuit specifically: This violates WP:UNDUE, because it is cited to a niche trade publication for legal issues that churns out large volumes of blurbs, announcements, and re-written press releases. It's the equivalent of citing daily stock tips from investor publications.

Pinging @Drmies: and @Graywalls:, who have both shown an interest in the page/situation. Ksf207 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Graywalls:, your opinion is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Eyes on BLP Guaidó issues with Interpol red alert request by Maduro administration

• Juan Guaidó
• Venezuelan presidential crisis
• Operation Gideon (2020)

Achieving neutrality and avoiding BLP breaches at Operation Gideon (2020) has been a constant struggle (see the talk page and two past talk archives and work underway to prep for a Move request).

This matter has taken on some importance this week, as the administration of Nicolas Maduro has requested a red alert for Guaido from Interpol (I hope I have that terminology correct), now living in the US, based partly on "Operation Gideon". More eyes are needed at Guaido, the Presidential crisis, but more urgently, at the Gideon article, which saw an unusual spike in pageviews just before the announcement. There have been ongoing BLP breaches and issues with misrepresentation of and poor use of sources, with very real consequences to living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• 2023-10-05 Fiscal General Tarek William Saab anunció orden de aprehensión contra Juan Guaidó - Attorney General William Saab announced an order for apprehension against Juan Guaidó, Maduro administration. QUOTE: "Adicionalmente, se investiga la participación y financiamiento en actos conspirativos por parte del supuesto gobierno de Guaidó en contra de las autoridades legítimamente constituidas; tales como la denominada 'Operación Gedeón'."

  Translation: Additionally, the participation and financing in conspiratorial acts by the alleged Guaidó government against the legitimately constituted authorities is being investigated; such as the so-called 'Operation Gideon'.

• CNN
• Washington Post
• CFR - queries about coincidence

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)