Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AgarWhisper (talk | contribs) at 14:01, 30 October 2023 (→‎Experienced Help Needed on Chris Bart biography: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

    Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:



    Sidney Powell

    And in schadenfreude news, Sidney Powell has pled guilty to six counts in Georgia.

    However, there are multiple sections about this case in Sidney Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and we are essentially saying the same thing in the first para (because it's kind of important to an article on a lawyer), the end of the lede, the section on Georgia, and the section on criminal indictments. There must be a way of streamlining this? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Agreed. This is an important story and will have more information to come as time goes by. For now, it should be simply stating the facts of the plea deal, which are clear and without ambiguity. This section should be narrowed and streamlined. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Zehra Sayers

    Material removed and offending editor blocked indefinitely. Daniel (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    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 page for Zehra Sayers has been modified by a user who removed most of her achievements, and focused the page on an anonimous letter published by the think-tank The Paris Institute for Critical thinking that accuses Sayers of financial fraud. The other cited source is a website in turkish that seems to be just a law article. I removed the libellious paragraph, but the user put it back in. I note that this user seems to have worked on only one other page which is... for the Paris Institute for Critical thinking. It seems to me this the same person published the anonimous letter and now is trying to defamate Sayers through Wikipedia, which is just not ok. Materials enthusiast (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I initially just removed the text which was not supported by the sources, but on reflection I think that per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't include this accusation at all without much better sourcing, so I've removed the whole paragraph. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that the paragraph has been re-inserted -- I could remove it again but I feel unless this user is prevented from continuously changing it back, it will just be me removing it and them adding in an infinite cycle. Thanks for your help! Materials enthusiast (talk) 11:17, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with others that better sourcing is needed for including this material; have reverted again and watchlisted. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Russ Woodroofe, for referring me to this page.
    The accusations against Zehra Sayers do not originate from the Paris Institute for Critical Thinking (PICT), which is not a think tank. They originate from a published investigative piece that was shared by PICT after its contents were confirmed by two first-degree relatives of Zehra Sayers, with certain clearly stated caveats.
    <blp violation removed>
    It is inexplicable to me why materials enthusiast is claiming “libel” and “defamation” on my part when such claims are not even being made by Sayers herself. This rather sounds like an attempt to cover up the truth via intimidation with legal terminology. However, whitewashing Sayers’ Wikipedia page does not make the ongoing ivestigation against her less of a fact, or, for that matter, less worth including on the page of a public figure, which Sayers undeniably is.
    Finally, I have been informed by Sayers’ relatives that the investigation will be concluded soon and PICT will publish its outcome, <blp violation removed>. I will be happy to update Sayers’ Wikipedia page with that information when it arrives, but for now I would respectfully insist that the established truth of the ongoing investigation not be covered up. Sturgehel (talk) 11:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note that there is only one source for the negative information, the second link used is simply an information page that contains general information about pensions, so naturally has no mention of Zehra Sayers. Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your comment. The information has been updated to pinpoint the source of the report. Also, information has been added to clarify the connection between the accusations against Sayers and the second source, <blp violation removed>. Sturgehel (talk) 14:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Vice.com journalist commentary included in JP Sears

    The discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vice.com_and_transphobia_description, but that discussion should have been put here, rather than there. I am notifying BLP/N follows to comment there as the discussion was already started. Graywalls (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Schmidt (attorney)

    I want to mention who he is married to in the page. While it's Facebook, given the context, I believe it passes the reliability requirement for this purpose. Any objections? https://www.facebook.com/mikeschmidt4da/videos/a-message-from-clare-schmidt/233708147896350/ https://www.mikeschmidtforda.com/ is his official campaign page which is of no concerns about authenticity and that Facebook account mikeschmidt4da is the same account that is linked from there, and the video was posted by the campaign page administrator, not a commentator. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    No. Please review the policies about this with WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPNAME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Pyrocynical (YouTuber)

    The "controversy" section contains allegations of criminal conduct and suffers from a serious lack of sources, sources being unreliable (Proving Pyrocynical's Guilt - Turkey) and sentences that comes off as original research and the authors own personal opinion rather verified factsTrade (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The OS team declined to delete revisions so i am bringing it up here--Trade (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that page is a big "nope". BLP violations, unsourced allegations, copyright issues, etc. WP:TNT most definitely applies here, so I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Might wanna keep an eye out for Pyrocynical and Draft:Pyrocynical in case of recreation.--Trade (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Welp, looks both of those were salted. Guess we are never getting an article about him now. Could you salt Draft:Pyrocynical (YouTuber) as well?-Trade (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just watchlisted it instead. If someone is that desperate to recreate it, they'll simply use a slightly different title. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Muhammad Sawalha

    Found this article at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Muhammad_Sawalha. Huge sections of quite serious allegations made against this individual are unsourced. Really needs thorough trimming/sourcing. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I've cleaned it up as much as I could.[1] There was a lot of allegations based on WP:BLPPRIMARY material that was removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morbidthoughts -- But you removed sourced references to his controversial purchases of council housing in London at a discount of more than ₤100,000 in a Jewish neighborhood near two synagogues and also left undisturbed THIS in the lede: "to help the besieged Palestinian people", which violates POV and SYNTHESIS.
    Sawalha helped found the Muslim Association of Britain and was also requested by the London's Metropolitan Police to become a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque. In addition, he signed the 2009 Istanbul Declaration, which reaffirms resistance as a valid means to oppose Israeli state terrorism, illegal occupation and war crimes against the civilian Palestinian population" -- violates POV and SYNTHESIS, among other sections, for those of us who haven't memorized the entire ever-expanding WP canon.
    And "was also requested by the London's Metropolitan Police to become a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque" is unsourced and not found anywhere in BLP article.
    He also holds British citizenship which is easily confirmed by RS. 50.75.202.186 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not even see any mention of his purchases off the version of the article I worked off of. So no, that was not me. Further, I did not review the lead; hence my lack of edits there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that his house is near two Jewish synagogues is sensationalist and not encyclopedic. I'm unclear as to the relevance of the £100,000 discount. I've removed several of your other complaints from the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Kenneth Zucker

    I noticed Hist9600 added this content here which claims: "In the 1990s, Zucker's clinic continued to view being transgender primarily as a mental disorder, while other clinics began to view being transgender as a type of normal human variation". It cites this book by transgender activist Florence Ashley (page 4). I have never seen Zucker say being transgender is a mental disorder, although he thinks gender dysphoria (previously gender identity disorder) is one (the feeling of discomfort or distress that might occur in people whose gender identity differs from their sex assigned at birth)

    To back up this claim, Ashley cites "Zinck & Pignatiello, supra Note 7 at 1: Diana Kohl, Death of the Clinic: Trans Informing the Clinical Gaze to Counter Epistemic Violence (PhD Dissertation, University of Western Ontario, 2019) at 25 [UNPUBLISHED]"

    So, Florence used an unpublished source for this claim. Surely this fails WP:VER and WP:BURDEN. She makes no reference to any of Zucker's writing in which he states "being transgender is a mental disorder". She is potentially misrepresenting 'gender dysphoria as a mental disorder' to construct the claim that Zucker thinks 'being transgender is a mental disorder'? I wonder if Florence's book would be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE or WP:BIASED (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Flaws) and should therefore be avoided? It is well known that clinicians distinguish between being transgender, and gender dysphoria (as a condition), as shown here on the APA. Kenneth Zucker is certainly a controversial figure, but this seems like a misrepresentation. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say that the disputed edit does not appropriately restate what the book actually says about the clinic: that its practice was outdated even though contemporary understanding views being transgender as normal human variation rather than a mental disorder. Given WP:REDFLAG, it shouldn't be included unless there are multiple RS about this, preferably peer-reviewed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zenomonoz, reliable sources are not required to cite their sources, or to use only published sources. Our requirement for Wikipedia:Published sources only applies to Wikipedia editors, not to reliable sources.
    The publisher is good, so perhaps you would like to read the opening chapter and see what statements you could (accurately) use it to support. A source's reliability depends on what it's being cited for, and I'm sure this book could be cited for something appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Morbidthoughts, that does seem to be the case. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    James Veitch (comedian)

    I want to start off by acknowledging the fact that I have a real-life connection to the individual this page James Veitch (comedian) is written about. This is why I am stating my concerns here rather than editing the page directly. My relationship to the subject (friend) does not invalidate my interpretation of the issues I see within this page. I would like to get a consensus view here on some of the page edits that I believe violate Wikipedia rules and have a negative impact on the subject of this page.


    There are a number of concerns about the contents of this page and its compliance with the Biographies of Living Persons policy. In particular, there is a concern about the harm being caused to the subject’s life and whether the content of the biography is fair. The following is a quote from the BLP policy (emphasis added):

    "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material. […] Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.”

    At present, both the introductory and concluding paragraphs of the biography contain serious allegations about the subject’s private life. Reference to these allegations was added to the subject’s biography on 5 September 2020. The subject has never stood trial in respect of these allegations, in either a criminal or civil court and there is no suggestion that these allegations were ever reported to, or investigated by authorities. Indeed, no legal proceedings have ever been initiated in respect of any of these allegations. At present therefore, the allegations are untested and have never been subject to any sort of scrutiny. They are strenuously denied by the subject.

    The nature of the allegations is such that they are highly damaging to the reputation of the subject. As you will no doubt be aware, the BLP Policy, states as follows (emphasis added):

    “Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”. The policy goes on to explain that: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by §Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”

    The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle which should be afforded to all individuals, including the subject of this page.

    Whilst allegations have been made to the Hollywood Reporter – they remain just that; untested, unsubstantiated and hugely damaging allegations. The harm caused to the subject’s life by these allegations has been significant – both in terms of the psychological impact and the impact upon his career. Three years have now passed since the publication of the allegations, but there has still been no action taken by any authorities or individuals involved, nor is there any suggestion that there will be. Indeed, the article confirms that “none of the students says she reported allegations of sexual misconduct.” The only reports made appear to have been to the media. Repeating such allegations is therefore arguably assisting in trial by media.


    In the circumstances therefore, I am respectfully requesting a review of the content of the subject’s biography with reference to the BLP Policy. I consider that the biography as presently drafted infringes the BLP Policy and should therefore be amended, so that reference to untested or untried allegations is removed.

    I have raised these concerns on the Talk page, but to no avail. [[2]] I also raised these concerns on the Dispute Resolution noticeboard, but I was re-directed here.

    Char296 (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Char296 09:10 24 October 2023[reply]

    We've been here before. After a sockpuppet started a thread on this board in 2021, an experienced editor significantly reduced the amount of weight given to the allegations, but they remain one of the most major sources of coverage of Veitch and are necessary to explain many key career events (such as having a Quibi role dropped). No new sources have come to light since then, despite persistent single-purpose account activity from 2020 to present.
    My position continues to be that we should reinstate a description of the allegations, sourced to The Hollywood Reporter (RSP entry). — Bilorv (talk) 08:47, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. There's no need to change the current article. Veitch is a public figure, and the allegations were widely reported. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:50, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree strongly. BLP does not mandate whitewashing. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yolanda Griffith

    In the lead of the article of former basketball player Yolanda Griffith, there is a claim that states that she is considered one of the greatest rebounders and defensive players in the history of Women's Basketball. The only source in the article stating so comes from a quote from the head coach of the team that had just signed her[3]. While the subject was most certainly an accomplished player, I have been unable to find any reliable and independent sources that confirm the above claim so I took it out only for it to be repeatedly reverted by an ip user (see article history). I've attempted to leave a talk page message with the IP user in question as well as at the article talk page and WikiProject Basketball but received no responses. I would think that such lofted claims would have to be backed up by reliable and independent sources. Alvaldi (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, her employer's statement announcing her joining them is clearly not a reliable source for this claim. I see the claim has been reinstated with a video from the NBA as a second source. That video may be a better source, though if I were being picky I might query whether "most dominant" (what the video describes her as) is the same as "greatest"; a sportsperson can be dominant in comparison to their cohort without being objectively one of the greatest ever. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is the question of whether NBA sources can be considered independent of WNBA players since the NBA owns a big part of it and has financial incentives in promoting its current and former players. There are however some independent sources that describe Griffith as a dominant player, so there shouldn't really be a problem with describing her along the lines of a dominant player in her prime, but I've yet to encounter one that states she is one of the greatest of all time in those categories. Alvaldi (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Joseph Bruchac

    Is there a BLP issue here[4] or is this more likely to be coming from offwiki? It was originally removed by User:CourseCorrection (who also made this related edit[5] which User:Lemonaka reverted. and just added by - someone from Philadelphia (residental IP). Both IPs are almost certainly the same person. Doug Weller talk 12:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The material from Debbie Reese seems to fail WP:BLPSPS; while the American Indians In Children's Literature blog does have a "co-editor" (and did at the time the relevant page was posted), it looks to be a group blog for two people. However, there are also questions about his heritage sourced to Times Union (Albany), a Hearst paper which at least passes the sniff test for being a reliable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of the Times Union opinion piece (not a research article) is Chris Churchill, and he is not a "reliable source," given the many errors, misquotes, innuendos and hateful opinions from others quoted in the piece. Debbie Reesee is also unreliable, since she is currently engaged in a concerted campaign to defame and discredit Joe Bruchac, through her blog, through social media, and through letters written to his publishers. So she should not be salting his Wiki subject page with her biased opinions. 96.227.68.25 (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting BLP policy (borrowed from comments to a similar issue with James Veitch's bio): "Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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...Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.” 96.227.68.25 (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Times-Union piece is by a columnist, but it does indeed seem to be a researched piece. The claim of "many errors" in the piece would require more evidence than your say-so. And if you check how that Veitch discussion is going above, you'll see that it is not coming out the way the commenter you're quoting would wish, in large part because Veitch is a public figure... a similar descriptor that could be put on a poet laureate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia should always exercise caution but is not responsible for what reliable sources say about a subject or our articles. I learned a valuable lesson about that recently and I'm putting that lesson into practice here. Simply because you do not like what they say is not a reason to remove it from Wikipedia. Our BLP policies is not justification for removing valid allegations about a subjects life choices and decisions which has caused valid scrutiny of their conduct in sources whether COI SPA's and IP editors believe it should be otherwise or not. Wikipedia is not a court so claims of libelous material are moot. If the IP believes a source contains libelous material then I would encourage them to test that theory in a court of law where such terms may be valid (not legal advice). Throwing that term around on here is just going to get sanctions and the only reason to do so is to stymie productive discussion and collaboration or win an argument. The allegations as written currently are not sensational and we do not add value laden words you would typically see if POV puffery. They are sourced allegations. They are legit and valid and we can not dismiss them. They are properly attributed to who made the claims. They are WP:DUE. --ARoseWolf 13:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I will add this too. Biased sources are perfectly fine for Wikipedia and do not contribute or take away from their reliability. If it was based on that criteria then Wikipedia would be significantly smaller (closer to zero articles) than what it is. We get a lot of valuable and due content from biased sources because biased, either for or against, sources tend to investigate more. We are to edit in a neutral way making sure to attribute claims so they are not being made in Wiki-voice and make sure all content is DUE through collaboration. --ARoseWolf 13:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I"ve asked for semi-protection as the IP is editwarring (with the two addresses, University one first). One more revert and I'll ask for a block. Or on the other hand, I haven't edited the article, just alerted people and a project, so... Doug Weller talk 13:46, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've refrained from reverting the removals pending this discussion. CourseCorrecton is still making edits to the article. I haven't evaluated all the edits but it appears on the surface to run afoul of WP:PUFF. --ARoseWolf 14:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    CourseCorrection says he is Bruchac's brother. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    With that COI, they should be blocked from editing the page, especially when they have no consensus or other editors speaking in their favor.  oncamera  (talk page) 15:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever the issue with the IP, Nat Gertler is correct that the blogspot references need to go. WP:SPS is quite clear in that Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (bolding in the original). This doesn't depend on the reliability of the author. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nat Gertler didn't say the blogspot reference needed to go. He said it seems to fail. In fact the times union piece, a well researched piece by an independent columnist, verifies the claims made by the blogspot source. And all our article, or all that is attributed in our article to the blogspot, says is the Abenaki First Nation contests the subjects claims of Abenaki identity. It's even properly attributed to the ones contesting the claims. So we have a reliable times union source written by a columnist and a blogspot source made by a subject matter expert in which the Abenaki First Nation, the governing body of the federally recognized Abenaki Nation, and other Indigenous scholars contest the subjects claims to be Abenaki versus the subject own claims which his economic situation has depended on and does depend on. Which is more reliable? Why is his Abenaki identity sourced to a website that makes no such claim in the first place. To get that claim from that source you must go to vermonthumanities.org then to josephbruchac.com, which is listed on the site as the subjects own personal website. That's a more reliable source than the www.timesunion.com by an independent journalist and the blogspot.com piece by a subject matter expert? --ARoseWolf 10:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Fails WP:BLPSPS" means it needs to go, it is not to be used as a reference for material about a living person. That applies to the reference and to any material that was sourced solely to it. His heritage is not the only thing that that blog is used for the in the article; the blog's review of one of his books is included in the Writing section. And it looks like you're reading into both my and User:ActivelyDisinterested's comments more than we're saying; neither of us has said that the heritage question needs to be eliminated from the article. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely agree with all Nat Gertler's point. I have not made any comment on the content of the article, but SPS's cannot be used as references in any BLPs. It's a matter of policy, find other sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another source was found and included for the challenge to his self-proclaimed identity. --ARoseWolf 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If we remove that book review reference that eliminates the issue of content sole sourced to this SPS discussed here. --ARoseWolf 18:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, once both references behave been removed there won't be any SPS issue. addendum Sorry just reread your comment, it doesn't matter if it's solely references to a SPS or not. Neither reference can be used. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone ahead and removed the two Reese references and the material sourced to it (the review and a non-primary portion of the heritage statement not supported by the remaining source.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't like giving these people another platform to promote an unsupported identity, especially one in which they make a living off the backs of a marginalized group but that's how it goes, policy and all that. I won't accept it but I will live with it. --ARoseWolf 08:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found out about this piece of policy in a similar manner. It can be annoying, but as I've thought about it I've come to accept it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Respectfully, ARoseWolf, Wiki editing is not an appropriate way to exert your personal opinion and biases about any living person. Joe is NOT engaging in cultural theft, and his identity is NOT the primary source of his success. Also, you clearly do not understand that the Canadian Abenaki First Nation is NOT the "governing body" of ALL other Abenaki (despite what a few activists are shouting). The Canadian Abenaki First Nations are NOT "federally recognized" in the US and have NO legal power over ANY Native people in the US (or over any other Native Nation in Canada, or any State legislature in the US). Joe is not a citizen of a Canadian tribe; he is a citizen of the state-recognized Nulhegan Abenaki in Vermont. So, to resolve the question of source (since you are insinuating that this is a problem), it would make the most sense to add a link to the Vermont State Legislation, rather than to Joe Bruchac's website. Here is the link: https://legislature.vermont.gov/statutes/chapter/01/023 CourseCorrection (talk) 12:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: To add some factual data to the charge that Joe Bruchac is somehow making "a living off the backs of a marginalized group," it's important to note that, out of his over 180 published books, only 30 make any mention of Abenaki people, and over 50 have nothing to do at all with Native Americans. CourseCorrection (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this particular editor is currently blocked but I hope they will still read this. I do have an opinion on things. I am a biased individual, However, I am not edit war my biases into Wikipedia. Part of the very essence of Wikipedia, a most important part, is collaboration. I respect ActivelyDisinterested and Nat Gertler. We might have a difference of opinion but they have been through the process of editing multiple articles and content creation. They have been through many policy discussions and collaborated with countless other editors from this community, my community. We all have biases. Being human is having biases. But I know how to collaborate and I know consensus is supreme. Despite that my opinions have not changed. As stated we learn to accept. I think the subject of the article has been discussed thoroughly here and any BLP issues addressed. I refuse to promote the subject by continuing this conversation any more than needed to accomplish those goals. --ARoseWolf 11:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ARoseWolf@ActivelyDisinterested@CourseCorrection@NatGertler@Oncamera Bruchac's brother CourseCorrection is still editing the article including adding unsourced information. [Here he edits the article to say that Bruchac is a member of a state tribe without a source for that. Should we be going to WP:COIN? Doug Weller talk 15:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't realised there was a COI issue, unless they will stop editing the article I don't see there's much choice. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to try and drop them a note to try and get them back ontrack, but I see they have taken disruptive behaviour to another article and been blocked. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Dave Plummer

    There has been a long-term campaign by an IP user in Austalia to accuse Dave Plummer of a crime based upon a settlement he made in 2006 with the Washington State Attorney General's Office. See [6], [7] and [8].

    This resulted in a previous page protection [9] and there are a number of hidden revisions that are not visible to me that I presume contain similar accusations.

    The IP accuses Plummer of editing his his own page, which is certainly possible, but on the other hand his YouTube channel has half a million subscribers, many of whom no doubt geolocate to Redmond, Washington.

    In my opinion, the 12:45, 18 October 2023 version[10] was in compliance with WP:BLPCRIME. I also question the edit to the Scareware page, [11] but I may be biased, so I ask someone else to please evaluate it. Do we really want to base accusations on press releases from prosecutors instead of third party reliable sources? --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 14:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Indian Espionage case in Qatar

    In article Indian espionage case in Qatar -

    • 8 living persons have been labeled charges of spying on Qatar even before their conviction.

    I raise objection this nomenclature based on following-

    1. There is no Primary Source indicating charges levied on them(Espionage) == Wikipedia:Libel is attracted here

    2.Source(Middle east monitor) in India–Qatar relations's conflict section in not RS see [1] discussion.

    3. Sources in Indian espionage case in Qatar are poorly sourced and do not confirm espionage being charges. In fact Jerusalem Post source was just discussing the charges and here it was provided as a RS [12]. WOW!!

    3. WP:BLPCRIME says :

    editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured

    Editors ignored this and used Espionage without a conviction

    4. Though conviction is Reported to have been taken place there is no confirmation of it from Qatari government on Charges

    Therefore I suggest no mention of Espionage as charges in the title. Also to bring to your attention talk page [13]. here, I supported the move stating same facts. But i am not sure though if suggested page will solve concerns regarding BLP. I seek guidance and remedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankraj giri (talk • contribs) 19:01, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly the article wording could do with improvements but I think we clearly have to include media speculation they were possibly convicted of espionage offences while making clear the precise details have not been publicly revealed. This isn't a BLPCRIME case without convictions or charges. In fact it seems clear from RS that the people involved have been sentenced to death, it's just that precisely what they've been accused and convicted of has been kept fairly secret. Nil Einne (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    NO nil einne.. There is no RS yet on neither conviction nor charges. Ministry of External Affairs (India) just said it has learned that they have been convicted with death penalty, but they are awaiting detailed judgement. Earlier that day one of the relative took to twitter to explain her anguish on this whole secrecy and confusions. Wikipedia:Libel and Wikipedia:BLPCRIME were made for the simple reasons that those facing trials have relative and therefore should be considered innocent until proven guilty. I don't think Wikipedia is news reporting website which discusses speculations. I propose we have in lead no mention of charges, then as you said we can have speculations in the article somewhere making it clear that there is public document by Qatari authorities indicating the same.
    It is too late for these changes though. I am surprised that it all went unnoticed for so long.
    `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we include well sourced speculation. Why wouldn't we? You would appear to want to do OR via primary documents, that you can't do. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ankraj giri: not sure what nonsense you're talking about but this BBC source [14] clearly says 'India has said it is exploring all legal options after a court in Qatar sentenced eight former Indian naval officers to death on unspecified charges.' and 'On Thursday, the Indian government said it was "deeply shocked" and would take up the verdict with Qatari authorities.' It leaves no doubt that these people were convicted and sentenced to death. This isn't presented as speculation but as undisputed fact, by the BBC a highly reputable source. It also makes clear that precisely what they were convicted of is unclear, but that doesn't mean they weren't convicted. As I said, there may be legitimate issues surrounding the wording given the lack of clarity on what they were convicted of, but as long as you talk nonsense like 'There is no RS yet on neither conviction' don't expect to get anywhere. RS make it clear they not only have been convicted of something but have even been sentenced to death, it doesn't seem to be in any dispute. It is of course to possible for RS to be certain that there has been a conviction and certain of the initial sentence, but to be uncertain of what the conviction and sentence is for. It's quite likely a reason for their relatives anguish is precisely because they know their relatives could be executed at any time because they have been convicted. They are also likely unsure why etc give the secrecy, which undoubtedly adds to the anguish but I quite doubt their relatives are under any illusion that these people have been convicted and so may be executed at any time. (Qatar isn't exactly known for their human rights record, so it would hardly be surprising if they execute these people without ever informing anyone beforehand or giving relatives a chance for a final goodbye, nor making clear why they are executing them. I mean heck, I expect few people with knowledge of the country would be surprised if Qatar has executed them before even informing anyone else that they were convicted although that wasn't what happened here.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I focused on this statement by MEA- We have initial information that the Court of First Instance of Qatar has today passed a judgement in the case involving 8 Indian employees of Al Dahra company. specifically on word initial information. Anyway, this all secrecy and diplomatic language, I may have confused myself, so I apologize. Also please see my edit in -Indian espionage case in Qatar- I changed the lead and content as much as I can to my capability. Main problem remaining is the title of article, hoping we reach consensus on it soon. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 11:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Adam B

    Adam B (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    IP editor repeatedly adding wholly undue poorly sourced negative section. Kathleen's bike (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have semi-protected Adam B for ten days, in the hope that the IPs indignation will fade by then. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Experienced Help Needed on Chris Bart biography

    I have been monitoring this "article" and been trying to bring some sanity to it. I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor so I would appreciate a mentor in following correct procedures and shallowing my learning curve. Specifically:

    1. Chris Bart either is or has hired User:Stopthepresses2023 to "curate" his page. These edits largely consist of inserting weasel words to hype or downplay facts. These revisions consistently get reversed and this user does not participate in other pages. I don't think that confronting this user would yield a good-faith negotiation, so I would appreciate guidance on the correct escalation procedure.

    2. I requested a page deletion which failed on the sole basis that Chris Bart had 600+ academic citations. Other editors and reviewers conceded that there is nothing - other than the his dismissal from McMaster University - to make him notable. I think the basis for keeping his page on the volume of his citations is a flawed one. Reviewers only paid brief attention to the quantity of citations and not the quality. I suspect that the bulk majority of citations were purely for introductory context and the academic was thinking "I need a quote that board diversity is a good thing. Ah, this comes up at the top of my results." I would like direction in mounting an appeal to the Keep decision that won't have me reading through scores of background information and picking through hundreds of citations. Can someone help me demonstrate that Bart's citations do not prove that he has academic notability?

    3. Bart's other accomplishments are not notable in aggragate or in and of themselves. As a Diamond Jubilee medal recipient and student at CPA Ontario, I can attest that his awards are largely political and given to anyone who sufficiently self-promotes, leverages favours or kisses up to the right people. His publications have not gained any popularity (notwithstanding providing superficial background information). I need my argument in 2 to reflect this.

    I am vaguely aware that there are better places to post this request. Gentle nudging in the right direction is what I'm looking for. With thanks AgarWhisper (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You may also want to create a post at WP:COIN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    AgarWhisper, I have indefinitely pageblocked Stopthepresses2023 from the Chris Bart article. The editor can make edit requests at Talk: Chris Bart. Cullen328 (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm much obliged for your intervention.
    For the other matter of building a fresh case for deletion that specifically addresses the quality of the citations, is there advice on how to proceed short of WP:OR on the 600 citations? I attended three business schools in the same region as Prof. Bart and never heard of him. That's pretty telling if he's as significant as 600 citations imply. AgarWhisper (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    David Ho

    David Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There were persistent edits about alleged new partner and a new child from Wc2713, Daviddaiho, Tangledfruit32. The very 1st edit, 2nd edit, and thereafter subsequent edits and also abusing minor edits. All these didn't provide verified source on these allegations.

    And there's an apparent imposter Daviddaiho edits (which misuse minor edits) and an apparent sockpuppet Tangledfruit32 edits, also another edits, (that only so far edits on these allegations)

    and finally Wc2713 cite a source, however it's unverified source, from google drive.

    Meanwhile, I tried to look about David's family on offical websites. I also tried to find these allegations, even on news media, so far none too.

    Cat12zu3 (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just about to add a report about this as it didn't show up in my search.
    It seems Mr Ho might have a new partner/wife but so far I can't find a reliable source.
    I've tried explaining to Mr Hos' assistant(see admission here [15]) that they need to provide a ref and add to the article, not just delete his first wife [16] and I left them a COI notice.
    I have left a COI notice on the account Daviddaiho (talk · contribs) who also posted a question at the help desk, [17].
    I'm struggling to find a suitable reference for his new partner.
    There isn't a problem with adding a new partner if we can find a new reference and without removing his first wife unless she requests her removal via the correct channels.
    This isn't a controversial edit but it needs referencing. Knitsey (talk) 11:13, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Alas! I was busy and took long time to compose it in the Talk:David Ho#Marital & personal status and remove family and children info in the article then I tried to update the status here and saw your reply.... Cat12zu3 (talk) 11:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, so total removal of any family/cnildren info is drastic? I going to revert myself back.... Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thought that would be neutral...slient about family Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I had seen [Columbia Univ ADARC staff] [(archived)] about Wendy Chen.

    Becuase of misusing minor edits, I still wary and can't be sure that both Wc2713 and Daviddaiho accounts indeed belong to [Wendy Chen] [(archived)] and David Ho. Can't be sure.

    Because of lack of info publicly, including ADARC official website, or even reliable news sources, and both wiki accounts lack of verified sources...I'm not sure if that alleged David Ho personal/family status is true. Any changes has to come from David Ho himself.

    Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wc2713 (talk · contribs) who says they are David Hos' assistant has posted this PDF [18] which has Tera Wong as his spouse but I would like to hear from other editors as to whether this is enough for referencing? Knitsey (talk) 13:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've also added the BLP noticeboard tag to the talk page Talk:David Ho. I will remove it when this is resolved. Knitsey (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted that PDF resume has been linked thru David Ho's official lab page. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted that link @Hyphenation Expert: so that someone can assess if it's OK to use. I think this could be easily resolved if either the PDF or another reference is provided if the PDF isn't sufficient.
    I think the two accounts I've interacted with are probably genuine and this may be a misunderstanding about deleting content when adding his new partner? Knitsey (talk) 14:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So when Wc2713 comes back and mention new spouse and new child, but no publicly source, what is the next step? I couldn't tag as <<unverified source>>? Knowing it was apparently from an ADARC staff, but with no public website, no public source, what should I do? Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry my bad I just saw PDF linked to David Ho official page mentioned buy @Hyphenation Expert.
    But that public link to PDF....that PDF metadata just recently created, as in few hours ago today. I see. Thanks. Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cat12zu3: it would really be helpful if you stopped deleting some of your comments as it can get quite confusing. You could maybe use strikethrough instead? Knitsey (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry my bad Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you've added the unreferenced information back in @Cat12zu3:.
    The whole point of this is to resolve the problem with unreferenced edits.
    I give up. I'm sure someone else will sort this out. Knitsey (talk) 16:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry my bad I should had said can close case immediately.
    In the Talk:David Ho#Marital & personal status I saw <<@Cat12zu3: The resume is provided on the official lab website [19] Hyphenation Expert>>
    Which happened just few hours ago today in their own ADARC official website, as per PDF resume metadata linked to that official website. (And I reply him back about how recent that is and thanked him)
    (Earlier that Special:Diff/1182200425 was in google drive and not in lab official website, at that time I tried to find it on offical or reliable source so far none)
    Can close the case. Thank you very much.
    Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Is a generic "He is married with four children." considered omitting 'claims about third parties', as they're unidentified? Hyphenation Expert (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's still just better to omit the lot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Political views of Javier Milei / Political positions of Javier Milei

    There is currently a deletion/redirect discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political views of Javier Milei that may be interesting to readers of this noticeboard. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician)

    There is a bunch of discussion at Talk:Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) about a comment Johnson made in 2019, described as He went on to say that he and his wife early in their married life took in a 14-year-old African American boy, now an adult, and consider him a part of their family.

    In my opinion, the commentary is devolving into BLP violations. Walt Yoder (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    What exactly is the BLP violation in your opinion? AncientWalrus (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any obvious BLP-problems there atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Echoing others I can understand why getting into how long ago the boy was adopted (and so suggestions he and his wife lived together before marriage) might cause BLP concerns but it's not clear to me what the concerns are with that specific text which doesn't get in to that. (Well technically it does suggest they were already married which technically could be a BLP concern but I'm not convinced it is here.) Likewise if we were naming the other person or giving details on what lead up to them being taken in by Mike Johnson or giving a birthdate or something I could understand concerns about giving too much info on a private person. But I don't think simply giving an age, ethnic identity, gender identity and stating that they (note this doesn't comment on how the man feels about Johnson or his wife) consider him part of the family are enough to raise concerns since it sounds like these came from reliable secondary sources (rather than primary ones). P.S. If editors are concerns about that saying they were married is a problem, how about changing early in the married life to 'early in their life together' or 'early in their life as a couple'? Nil Einne (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s hardly the first time that a politician who portrays themself as some kind of plaster saint, turns out to be… not that. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that I'd want to say "early in their life together" unless the sources explicitly support that: Johnson was 27 when they married, so it's entirely concievable that they had been together for quite some time before that point. As far as I can tell the current text is 100% true: Johnson has said that early in his married life he and his wife took in this boy. If reliable sources start to care about how this works chronologically and start to report on it, we can comment, but as it is I don't see an issue with the current text. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Hanania

    Seeking input here. Many users on the talk page seem to suggest this page places undue focus on Hanania's old racist blog posts written under a pseudonym between 2008-2012, which he has since disavowed. Other editors have recently expanded the focus on this controversy in the last day.

    The page failed a "did you know?" nomination, partly because "the article appears largely based on a quite negative profile of Hanania in the Huffington Post. It reads like an article that unduly focuses on negative aspects of a living person, which should largely be avoided.... the Huffington Post article quotes the original Hanania essay inaccurately and out of context." and "there are serious BLP issues here... coverage of the subject is overwhelmingly focused on something other than what the deprod claimed is his case for notability (NAUTHOR)".

    Another user argued "Over half of the "career" section is devoted to a summary of... a bunch of blog comments he wrote pseudonymously fifteen years ago? This seems undue, seeing as virtually nobody saw or cared about his dumb blog posts from 2008, versus his writing as a pundit in recent years, where he's appeared on national networks and had millions of readers, et cetera. Again, his opinions are loathsome, but this seems rather out of line and potentially a walking BLP violation"

    Seeking some input from less invested editors. In the last day the page was swarmed by editors who think it necessary to include every last detail of these blog posts in the lead (e.g. see the potentially overly detailed lead in this version), and editors who appear to be "Hanania fans" who want to hide criticism of him. Any thoughts on the neutrality and balance of the article? I am not sure. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    If you go back to the beginning. This was the lead on the 23 October [20], this lead had been on the article for a while with no dispute. Then on 28 October 2023 a user claiming to be Hanania put a complaint on the talk-page. A few hours after this a user who is not very active on Wikipedia white-washes the article lead completely [21], the same user did the same thing again several times. It's obvious that there are white-washing attempts here. As documented at WP:FTN [22] many sources describe Hanania (as of 2023) still making racist comments but this information has been omitted from the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is now a case of meat-puppetry as advertised by Hanania [23] (also see the comments on Twitter), users have said they have edited the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    untrue. the article had an extensive talk discussion about it being unbalanced before recent days. there was no consensus resolution to this argument in the talk page, and the main entry was de facto left as the anti Hanania editors preferred. not via consensus Jazi Zilber (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is obvious meat-puppetry. Before 28 October (when Hanania advertised his complaint on the talk-page and Twitter), no user had edited his Wikipedia article for 5 days and no user was trying to remove those sources from the lead. There were discussions on the talk-page about the article being unbalanced you are correct but no user was disputing the sources in the lead. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I intentionally highlighted quotes from longstanding editors who had nothing to do with the topic. e.g. the reviewer for "Did You Know?" nomination, which long predated any alleged meat puppetry (the article was not radically changed either). I appreciate that you've been vocal on your thoughts on this article, but we should be seeking input from other editors here. Zenomonoz (talk) Zenomonoz (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    "referred to Black people as animals" in lead

    User Generalrelative has added to the lead: others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism, pointing to a 2023 social-media post that referred to Black people as animals. The tweet in question doesn't say black people are animals, it says Daniel Penny getting charged. These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits. Hanania could mean black people, or he could mean that violent criminals are "animals" no matter how they dress. The phrasing also seems wrong as Hanania did not appear to "disavow racism", he disavowed his previous writing... so WP:STICKTOSOURCE. What do people think? Zenomonoz (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It strains credulity to interpret that as being a comment on 'violent criminals'. And the cited secondary source (which is the Atlantic) clearly does not interpret it that way. There's no BLP problem or sourcing problem with that edit. MrOllie (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it "strains credulity" when the tweet doesn't mention black people. It's bordering on libel, at least it should have attribution to The Atlantic. And from WP:RS/QUOTE: The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an exception to the WP:3RR for BLP issues: Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. So you can remove it without violating the 3RR. Unsure if this would qualify. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not because it is well sourced. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He didn't say it strained credulity that it didn't mean black people; he said it strained credulity to suggest he meant "violent criminals", and it does. It wasn't just clothes that he was addressing it was actions; it was whether they were harrassing (often a crime), or just walking around and wearing suits, neither of which is a crime. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The author of the secondary source makes clear that this is a statement about Black people being "animals" regardless of their social class. Generalrelative (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took Hanania's tweet to mean that a person who has dozens of violent convictions (in this case, the victim, Neely) is an "animal" whether or not they are dressed up nicely. The statement is reprehensible, but whether or not this refers to black people as a whole seems contentious. But, if a writer for The Atlantic interpreting the tweet as such is reliable enough for Wikipedia, then I am happy to leave it. I just wanted to make sure this isn't going to cause an issue. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Update: I see that the The Atlantic source did not actually say what Generalrelative put in the article. The Atlantic quoted the tweet, but did not explicitly say that Hanania "referred to Black people as animals", so this seems a stretch WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Hemiauchenia has since removed it from the opening. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    It is a reasonable paraphrase of what is in the Atlantic. WP:STICKTOSOURCE does not mean 'copy and paste from the source'. MrOllie (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure about that. Atlantic says the tweet was "about the Black district attorney of Manhattan indicting a white man who strangled a homeless Black man on the subway", not black people as a whole (although still racist). Given something as contentious as this in a BLP, it probably should be framed in context as The Atlantic has done so. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:40, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's awfully cherry picked. Here's the full context:

    Two days after Mathias’s story, Hanania responded, stating, “Over a decade ago I held many beliefs that, as my current writing makes clear, I now find repulsive.” He rejected Mathias’s characterization of his “creepy obsession with so-called race science” as “dishonest,” insisting that he does not believe that Black people are “inherently more prone to violent crime” than white people. People can and do change, even those with extreme views like these, but there’s not much evidence that happened here. As the writer Jonathan Katz notes, Hanania recently wrote, “These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits,” in an angry tweet about the Black district attorney of Manhattan indicting a white man who strangled a homeless Black man on the subway.

    MrOllie (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hanania recently wrote, “These people are animals, whether they’re harassing people in subways or walking around in suits,” in an angry tweet about the Black district attorney of Manhattan indicting a white man who strangled a homeless Black man on the subway. There are two people who are "these people" being referred to, and it's not people with convictions for violent crime. I think most people here know I'm pretty hard line when it comes to BLP, and I think the addition to the lead is a reasonable summation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks for the context (and MrOllie). Best to frame all this in full context in the article to avoid looking like selective quote mining (as it appeared to me). Full context it makes it clearer Hanania was being racist. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We're suppose to summarize and paraphrase, not paste large unwieldly hunks of sources into the article. It is best to be succinct. MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The context here requires at most a few sentences, and is reported on in reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've re-added the disputed text to the article because it seems like we've got consensus over here that it's appropriate. I think there might be a clearer wording, but I usually consider myself pretty good at finding clearer summaries of controversial text and I can't find it. Loki (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Forum shopping

    Just noting that this thread appears to have been opened as an attempt to forum shop after a discussion was already underway at FTN. Also, Zenomonoz, if you want to discuss my edits (and mention me by name) as you did above, you're supposed to ping me. Taking a look at the amount of reverting that this user has been doing –– well over 4RR for today –– I'm seeing a trip to a disciplinary board as a possible solution if things don't improve. Generalrelative (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This is completely off topic here
    1. I reverted my revert after you left a message on my talk page. This is user behavior, and unrelated to the BLP noticeboard.
    2. This isn't "forum shopping". I have raised issues on one noticeboard because it is related to the editing style of a BLP, and this was justified thanks to unresolved disputes on the talk page. The issues raised by another user on FTN concern other issues. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ajit Kushwaha

    I am not generally a BLP editor, but came across Ajit Kushwaha by chance. I think the article is conflating two different people, Ajit Kushwaha and Ajit Kumar Singh, who I don't think are the same person. I edited the lead but I think the confusion runs deeper than than that. Could do with an expert (or an Indian, which I am not) view. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Both are same person. Actually there can be different politician with same name. I have chosed this name as he is also known by this name and many sources refer to him by this name. I have listed some of the sources there, they are in Hindi language. Admantine123 (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have created over hundred articles for Indian politicians and i am aware about many of them. The source you inadvertently removed was also related to this politician only. That was from a website tracking elections in india. You can see the mention of constituency Dumraon Assembly constituency there and the second Bhaskar source also say Dumraon Legislator. Moreover I track this legislator regularly and had watched many of his interviews. So i am hundred percent confident for the intro. Admantine123 (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    [24], this source say that he is known as Ajit Singh and many other say that he is known by name of Ajit Kushwaha. That's why it is important to include both name. In India many politicians change their name after getting elected by choosing a name which represents their caste affiliation. As for example the official name of Pappu Yadav is Rajesh Ranjan and Gopal Mandal is Narendra Kumar Neeraj. Similarly Upendra Kushwaha is Upendra Kumar Singh. But we chose to create the article by others name as they are commonly known by these names and most of the source mention them so. Admantine123 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Edits to Huston family blatantly contradict the facts

    Pure distortion: [25], [26], [27], [28]. 76.89.194.44 (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    See article at adoption for what it means to a family and relationships. Classifying an adopted person as unrelated is defamatory to that person as well as being false per what adoption means legally. My reverts back to the correct status quo on those articles reflect the fact that adoption created a real relationship equivalent in all aspects to that of a biological one. Classifying an adopted child as a step-child is factually wrong and degrading. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Apollo program#Conspiracy theories

    See talk page Parham wiki (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1182640372"