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.

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. [[1]] 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

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)

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)

Agree strongly. BLP does not mandate whitewashing. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:32, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Char296 started a RfC on this which Bilorv reformatted to be more neutral.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Bruchac

Is there a BLP issue here[3] or is this more likely to be coming from offwiki? It was originally removed by User:CourseCorrection (who also made this related edit[4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CourseCorrection says he is Bruchac's brother. Doug Weller talk 14:28, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Another source was found and included for the challenge to his self-proclaimed identity. --ARoseWolf 18:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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 [5]. 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 [6]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

@Ankraj giri: not sure what nonsense you're talking about but this BBC source [7] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

You may also want to create a post at WP:COIN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [8]) that they need to provide a ref and add to the article, not just delete his first wife [9] 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, [10].

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)

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)

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)

Thought that would be neutral...slient about family Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Wc2713 (talk · contribs) who says they are David Hos' assistant has posted this PDF [11] 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)

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)

I noted that PDF resume has been linked thru David Ho's official lab page. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Sorry my bad Cat12zu3 (talk) 14:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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 [12] 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)

• Hold up. No, this is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB, self-published sources (like a person's resume/CV or staff page) can be used for basic, non-controversial claims about that person, but never for third parties. We need to wait for reliable, secondary sources to report this claim. Woodroar (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I initially report these persistent edits, all these are actually about change of partner (2020 edits), then spouse and a new child (this week edits), statments that if is not true are damaging, libelous, defamatory.

  At that time until just few hours ago when ADARC official website publicly named new spouse and a new child, I tried to search from any reliable source, and since it is about family/relationship matters, also official source. Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I Referenced that official website only on statements about new spouse and new child.

  Once again, can close the case & thank you very much.

  Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  There is no reference to a possible new partner. The link you added doesn't mention his personal life and as stated, the PDF isn't a reliable source.

  Also, you removed his previous partner/wife. Why? Knitsey (talk) 17:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Sorry my bad. I going to undo my edit. Cat12zu3 (talk) 17:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  So here's the thing: we need to balance what we can say, as in, what our BLP policy allows us to write about, based on reliable sources and what we know is probably correct. It's unfortunate that a source from 1996 listed a spouse and that reliable sources haven't published any updates since then. In my opinion, the best thing to do would be to remove information about the spouse and children, because the named spouse and number of children are no longer correct. Neither our BLP policies nor any of our other polices require us to name a spouse or children, they only allow it in certain circumstances. It's better for our readers if we simply leave this information out rather than deceive them based on outdated information. Woodroar (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  Which at my earlier edit Special:Diff/1182294885 I thought is OK, is neutral, to remove all family info, and later I thought I could be wrong to be so drastic....

  ((Oh, so total removal of any family/cnildren info is drastic? I going to revert myself back.... Cat12zu3 (talk) 12:01, 28 October 2023))

  Any thoughts? Cat12zu3 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I'll let others chime in, but my personal preference is to remove the spouse/child details until a current reliable, secondary source reports on them. Woodroar (talk) 18:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I've removed the mention of spouse and children entirely. Hopefully that solves the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  The first wife was referenced. But I think that for now, you're right to bin the lot. Knitsey (talk) 18:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

  I understood. Remove family info to make it neutral like earlier Special:Diff/1182294885 and now Special:Diff/1182342303. Thank you very much. Cat12zu3 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

What exactly is the BLP violation in your opinion? AncientWalrus (talk) 23:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious BLP-problems there atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Reading the OP's comment again, I think I misunderstood, it seems they're complaining about the discussion on the talk page rather than the highlighted sentence. If so, I can understand their concerns better but in such a high profile case like this, I don't think it's worth worrying about. I think it's fair to mention on the talk page there seems to be a contradiction and discuss openly how to handle it with worrying too much that mentioning what the contradiction is, violates BLP itself. In other words, it's fine for the current discussion where editors have just mentioned that the dates given are contradictory and one of the possible reasons might be that Johnson lived together with his wife before marriage but since we have no sources that say anything like that we should take care not say or imply it. Of course if editors keep bringing up gratuitously this possibility or in contexts that don't relate to how can improve the article, then we may have a problem but that's not something that's happened. Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

If you go back to the beginning. This was the lead on the 23 October [13], 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 [14], 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 [15] 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)

This is now a case of meat-puppetry as advertised by Hanania [16] (also see the comments on Twitter), users have said they have edited the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

It does not because it is well sourced. Generalrelative (talk) 22:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The context here requires at most a few sentences, and is reported on in reliable sources. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

I think the current sentence in the article is problematic in the lead of a BLP (current lead[17]). The problem is that the sentence may be racist and clearly some sources view it as racist. However, because the tweet at least has plausible deniability we should treat it as sources are interpreting his tweet to mean (some?) black people are animals. As such it may be better to have this explained in the article body and while the lead should reference it as an allegation. The lead could be changed to something like "He disavowed his writing under the pseudonym. Sources accuse Hanania of continuing to make racist statements [refs]." Per IMPARTIAL we shouldn't treat the claims as true since there is at least some plausible deniability but they are clearly relevant when placed against his own claims. Springee (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think the quote in the body gives the important context necessary to interpret the quote, and I disagree with the way it is summarised in the lead, which is why I removed it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with removal too, actually, though not with the rationale. I'm totally on board with removing the clause from the lead despite my objection to the claims made by Zenomonoz above (and now apparently Hemiauchenia, whose opinion I respect) that it wasn't an accurate summary of the source. Frankly it just doesn't seem necessary, and may unduly highlight that one racist statement where other secondary sources emphasize others. I'd therefore suggest that this version is probably best, i.e.

He later disavowed his writing under the pseudonym, though others have cast doubt on whether Hanania has in fact disavowed racism.

Generalrelative (talk) 19:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that the summarisation is inaccurate per se, I just think that it's best to let the reader interpret the meaning of the quote when given the surrounding context in the body, which I think makes the intent of the quote unambiguous. I also agree that there's no reason to highlight it in the lead when he's made plenty of other questionable statements. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough! Generalrelative (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

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)

Too late, the most fervent chest-thumpers have thpoken. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[18], 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)

Thank you @Admantine123: I was confused because my translation of the www.bhaskar.com article is "The march was presided over by Dumraon MLA of CPI(ML) Dr. Ajit Kumar Singh. Dumraon MLA Dr. Ajit Kushwaha, CPI(ML) District Secretary Naveen, Neeraj Kumar, Rajesh Sharma, Ganesh Singh, Ankit, Siddharth and all the present youth garlanded the statue of Shaheed Bhagat Singh at the Martyr Memorial. A third opinion might be helpful. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Ajit Kumar Singh is Ajit Kushwaha. I am well read about politicians of Bihar. So i can guarantee that. Admantine123 (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Huston family blatantly contradict the facts

Pure distortion: [19], [20], [21], [22]. 76.89.194.44 (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

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)

Talk:Apollo program#Conspiracy theories

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

I don't see how this is a BLP issue? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Earnest James Ujaama

Ujaama's claim to fame is that he was convicted for terrorism-related crimes (ref, ref). A SPA (@Nadya Hasan) and an IP, which I believe are the same person, recently started edit-warring in an attempt to white-wash the article and paint Ujaama as a civil rights activist (which he sort of is, but that is not by any means the main reason why he is notable). Any thoughts? SparklyNights 21:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, according to the talk page, this article has been edited by two other COI SPA accounts: @Semaj247 (about 150 Ujaama-related edits) and @Aq247. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but there might be some sockpuppetry going on around here. This page seems to have been plagued with SPAs trying to white-wash Ujaama's image over the years, maybe some protection would be nice around here. SparklyNights 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Also, these two images ([23], [24]) belong to CBS News (they are from here) and their use in the article is probably COPYVIO. Can someone request their deletion on commons? I don't know that place well. SparklyNights 22:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

SparkyNights, there is no attempt to white-wash but to prevent a larger harm. There was a single event that occurred in a single, very problematic and troubling period of American history. And it occurred in 1999 and 2000, while this is not clear in the article. The subject was much younger and admittedly under the influence of a man whom he had respected. However, the article about the subject in the form that both SparkyNights and melcous are attempting to retain, paints the picture of a man who is known for petty crimes which is consistent with the Intercept article written by Trevor Aaronson who once asked the subject in an email if he was the one editing the subjects page. The subject was noteworthy before 9-11, and was well respected and known as a civil rights activist in the Black community. The subject extends from a family of community and civil rights activists. nd while the media got some things right, there was inaccuracies littered throughout the reporting. Those innacuracies are coming to light now because the war on terror is over. But there were many victims in the war on terror, and the government engaged in dishonesty and secrecy during that period. For example, Abu Hamza's main charge in relationship to the subjecct was a Title 18 USC 956 and related to two conspiracy charges, and it was dropped. However, not for the subject. In addition, the subject never took Feroz Abassi to a training camp, nor was there ever a jihad training camp in Oregon. With regard to the photos, the subject's father was the owner of those photos. And because it is a photo of the subject, there is not a copyright violation. All of the details about this person can be best described by the court documents which is where most of the citations originate from, except that they cherry pick what they want. I have followed WIkipedia's strict adherence to the BLPs guidelines and attempted to be fair and balanced. We are talking about a person who is Black American and Muslim in a time where there is a lot anger and hate in the US. We should be more than fair, but most of all we should understand that his livelihood and safety depends on a fair and balanced record that contextualizes the entire story. Again, his charges were for 1999, 2000, and 2006 (Flight to Avoid Testimony) which is a contradiction to the labeling of snitch by Trevor Aaronson in his article at the Intercept. The subject was not the main witness nor was the only witness, but should we be writing about a person simply because he cooperated with government authorities? Or simply because he testified? Trevor Aaronson is an informant, and so were the other eight witnesses who testified against Abu Hamza. Why should we single out this subject for his cooperation, which it was obvious he had no other choice. If he were in another country, we would have accused that country of torture. Nadya Hasan (talk) 03:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, the fact that this guy's life has been cursed because of his past deeds is probably one of the saddest things I've seen today. But Wikipedia's policies are uncaring about that, we don't remove relevant information about people around here just because it made their lives harder (see James Gordon Meek and the Richard Hanania discussion above, for example). It's alright if you want to disagree with the sources we call "reliable" here, but we still have to give more WP:WEIGHT to them because and not doing so is often called WP:POVPUSHING. I also disagree with a lot of stuff I see on Wikipedia every day, but a lot of the times there is nothing I can do about it because the WP:RELIABLESOURCES are not on my side. SparklyNights 04:07, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

This is such a callous statement. To refer to the subject as having a cursed life because of his past deeds. Wikipedia's policy toward BLPs suggests otherwise in regards to deference to balance. But I have mentioned that this is part of a larger picture taking place. It is one where harm is being caused by the wizardry and mastery, as well as power, of a few who can "as you described" care less. I have offered a balanced version filled with references and very reliable sources. But these are ignored letting me know that there is a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize and dehumanize Earnest James Ujaama. Therefore, I have asked for some higher ups to respond and possibly discuss deleting the page so that it is not used as an attack on the subject who is Black American and Muslim, and a member of a protected minority class deserving of all the rights of any other person with former criminal justice contact. Nadya Hasan (talk) 04:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

There is an effort to dehumanize the character of this living person. I have made the article more balanced and have attempted to humanize him. I have poured over thousands of documents, and so, therefore, I believe that I have a better contextual understanding of Earnest James Ujaama than "melcous" who I believe is Trevor Aaronson, a self-described terror journalist who writes for The Intercept. The subject has written lengthy and detailed responses to that article, which refers to him as a "snitch" and portrays him to be a very bad person for testifying against two other terrorists and cooperating with the government. Anyone who follows the subject on Twitter (X), his LinkedIn page, or reviews his doctoral dissertation can see he is passionate about human rights, social justice, and anti-racism. The subject is Black American and Muslim, making him a vulnerable minority, which means that someone reading his Wikipedia page may assume that he is truly nothing more than a government informant and terrorist supporter when in fact, he was never convicted of terrorism. These documents are all published on the Internet Archive. I added much more context, attempted to be balanced and discussed his life in context to the "why?" while maintaining balance. I am asking that this person's biography be restored to the edits that I made and locked with me being the editor for the page, strictly following and maintaining the integrity behind Wikipedia's BLPs guidelines. Thank you.

Signed Nadya Hasan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadya Hasan (talk • contribs) 03:14, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have replaced an article full of inline sources with one bereft of them so I doubt it's an improvement. It does seem correct that the earlier version of the article [25] looks to rely very heavily on a single source so possibly should be pared down but replacing it with info lacking inline sources or otherwise poorly sourced is not the way to go. Nil Einne (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed you started a second thread on this right below the other one which is already discussing the subject. Please do not do that again. I have merged the threads. If you have something to add on the issue, then please add it to this existing thread rather than starting a new one. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I followed the link on the subject page. Nadya Hasan (talk) 03:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am requesting either help to improve the following version or remove the article all together due to it was a single event. And I see no one is addressing or responding to my comments about the harm to this subject. There are plenty of references. When I view other pages such as Mark Wahlberg or Malcolm X, I see no difference in citations. But I am asking that this page be protected from further edits or removed until this can be done. This subject is a member of a protected minority class and he has a right to a balanced presentation of all of the facts. Nadya Hasan (talk) 04:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Indef PBAN Nadya Hasan

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.

---

Support as proposer. This editor has been too disruptive. He has been warned about WP:3RR three times on his talk page, twice on this page's edit summaries, and still he continues to revert the article. SparklyNights 06:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The forename "Nadya" implies that this person is a woman. I don't judge to too harshly for this though, as assuming a Wikipedia editor is male is right like 90% of the time. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Why are you discussing my gender. Does it really matter. The Editor of this article is Trevor Aaronson and the edits which I have made been repeatedly to balance in favor of the subject according to the BLPs policy guidelines. I am asking for a higher up to intervene because the references are unreliable sources and there is an abundance of references to the article written by Trevor Aaronson which has been contested. For example, Aaronson refers to the subject as a "Snitch" in the article for cooperating even though the subject had been charged for Avoiding Testimony. The Editor is biased and relies on the overuse of his article published by The Intercept while ignoring other articles that are much better sourced. In addition, there has been a history of dispute between the subject and the Trevor Aaronson, which indicates a personal involvement in the article. The overuse of one source is a violation of Wikipedia policy on BLPs, in that it is obviously promotional. Two editors pointed this out as well. I am asking that SparklyNights and melcous, who I believe are the same editors be removed from this page or that this page be deleted. I am also asking for a higher up to contact me as soon as possible regarding the legitimate edits that I made and differing very little from the current version. Thank you. Nadya Hasan (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Not only is your behavior disruptive, but now it is bordering on incivility as well. Unless you can provide sufficient proof that @Melcous is Trevor Aaronson from The Intercept, like you did yesterday on your talk page, I think you should redact your statements to avoid violating WP:ASPERSIONS. SparklyNights 07:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I was just correcting the apparent misgendering in SN's original comment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Accepted. Thank you for that correction. Nadya Hasan (talk) 07:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I missed that aspersion SparklyNights (which it seems Nadya Hasan has just reiterated on her talk page, although I could be wrong as I'm not 100% sure that it was directed to me). For the avoidance of doubt, I actually have no idea who Trevor Aaronson is, nor do I have any kind of WP:COI with this article, and I am confident my extensive edit history here over nearly 10 years is enough to convince other editors of that fact. I too would appreciate such spurious allegations being redacted. Thanks Melcous (talk) 07:26, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The overuse and promotional nature of an article by Trevor Aaronson should cause concerns. The edits made could have easily included articles where the subject has no history with the author. This is an indication of an attack piece written cleverly to avoid any suspicion of such. I have asked for a higher up to intervene because I believe the integrity of Wikipedia's BLPs policy is being ignored and the potential harm caused to the subject overlooked. Nadya Hasan (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

He was talking about the Trevor Aaronson who wrote this article. SparklyNights 07:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The article was referred to as much as 23 times at last check. The article is also in dispute and calls the subject a "snitch" which is a highly loaded and racially biased term that often gets members of the Black community killed such as what happened to the rapper, Nipsey. Nadya Hasan (talk) 07:50, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Nadya Hasan that still does not make it ok for you to cast aspersions and make blatantly false accusations about me and my editing. Melcous (talk) 07:59, 31 October 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.

1997 Pearl High School shooting

At the time of this incident, some students other than the shooter were charged with being involved, but the charges against them were ultimately dropped. One of them, Justin Sledge, is now a moderately prominent academic YouTuber. Since 2021, the article has periodically been edited by Special:Contributions/68.188.68.66, who habitually tries to emphasize Sledge's actions and insert mention of Sledge's unrelated subsequent criminal charge and his present career. Other editors have reduced this emphasis, though some seem to think these edits were promotional, when it looks much more likely that the anonymous editor is trying to portray Sledge in a negative light. I wrote on the talk page that the current version of the article has at least one possible inaccuracy. It seems like more experienced Wikipedian eyes may be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:601:1B80:820:ED10:C60B:A451:65DF (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I've had my concerns about this too for a while, as somebody who found out about this incident watching Sledge's youtube content. Sledge was only minorly involved in the incident, and I agree that there's no reason to mention his later gun charge conviction when it has nothing to do with the incident. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that both our article and the source cited specifically said that the later gun charge against Sledge had nothing to do with the Pearl High shooting, I have removed it as irrelevant. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Jim Norman (musician)

This article seems to have been edited back in 2016 to satisfy a personal vendetta, based on a comment the editor left on the talk page. The information about Norman's criminal activities is relevant, but the editor made them the main focus of the article. They even put the subject's BOP.gov Register Number in the lead, which imo crosses a line. I tried to fix the most obvious issues but the article still needs a lot of work. BLP are really not in my wheelhouse so I'd prefer to leave further edits to someone with more experience. Also, does the editor need to be warned about this sort of editing behavior? SilverStar54 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I started to trim the section, but this is entirely based off of primary sources and a random forum post as far as I can tell, so I've removed the whole thing: I can't find any news articles which could be used to write a BLP compliant section but at any rate there was nothing valuable there to base it off... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It's surprising this has stood uncorrected for seven years! SilverStar54 (talk) 23:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I endorse the removal, and have removed external links relating to the content. Even more concerning is that although it may be the musician who was convicted, none of the sources even make it clear it is the same person to start with. Kathleen's bike (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that his biography is largely unsourced and his conviction for fraud, he may not be a notable musician. I did a check for RS about his drumming and wondered if this very article was used in the fraud scheme. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This story is becoming weirder by the day it seems… SilverStar54 (talk) 06:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The page was created by @Paradise coyote, who’s a reputable editor and still active. Perhaps they can be of assistance. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Matthew Parish

This is in response to a VRT ticket received from Brian Choo of the Wikimedia legal department, in which he asks whether there could be some discussion of our page on Matthew Parish, who has apparently repeatedly requested deletion thereof. I've agreed to try to start that discussion here; if there's any sort of consensus here that WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE might be applicable in this case, I'll go ahead and start a deletion discussion too (unless someone else beats me to it).

Notes:

• I have no interest in the topic, and – for now at least – no opinion on whether the page should or should not be kept
• For those with VRT access, the ticket is this one
• Brian's message includes this statement: "As many of you know, the Foundation's legal team appreciates hearing volunteer opinions on certain takedown requests, with the hopes of honoring volunteer editorial autonomy on the projects".

Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ping to BChoo (WMF), for info. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! BChoo (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I can add a few clarifying facts for this request. For those with VRT access, see also this linked ticket for the article subject's requests.

• I also have no interest in the article or its subject

• The area of concern to the article subject seems to be primarily this one, regarding legal issues, as well as the inclusion of their date of birth.

• The facts in that section seem to be well-sourced to reliable references. So far, there is no indication that any of the sources relied upon have issued corrections or retractions of their published statements. The facts stated appear to be noteworthy.

• The article subject appears to meet WP:GNG as well as WP:BIO as notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 17:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_188#Matthew_Parish
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive340#COI_and_legal_threats_at_Matthew_Parish
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive271#Matthew_Parish (thread made by Parish himself)
• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive330#Matthew_Parish
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_175#Matthew_Parish
• 94.189.147.212 saying "You are heading towards becoming a defendant in civil litigation. Please provide your coordinates for receipt of ciivil claim documents; or I will seek a disclosure order from the Wikimedia Foundation to this effect."

SparklyNights 01:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

As for the birthdate, I see no problem with removing it per BLP policy. When it comes to deletion, that's a different matter. The policy for requested deletion typically applies to "relatively unknown" subjects, and while my threshold for this is fairly broad, for others it's much narrower. Personally, I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy, but others often feel they're doing the world and our subjects a great service by creating/keeping articles that are of relatively little value. (I tend to feel we need much, much higher standards of notability for bios, but that's another discussion for another place.) The problem I foresee is that there are a good number of reliable sources in the article, which tends to make deletion very difficult to achieve. However, looking at the history I see this article gets an average of 15 views a day, which you can make a good bet are mostly from the subject or people who know the subject. Thus, would we really be losing anything by deleting it? I'm all for deleting it, but experience tells me that it's going to be a hard sell. Zaereth (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Parish is at least arguably relatively unknown judging by the small number of pageviews. Though there are a lot of clearly reliable sources in the article, once you take out the ones which are primary or mostly not about Parish, there's at least a reasonable argument that the article isn't that important and deletion is justifiable.

Where I think this article might struggle compared to some BLP deletion requests is that this article was created by a user who apparently claimed to be Parish here (deleted page so I cannot view it) and only decided he wanted it deleted when it became clear that his legal troubles were the most notable thing about him and he wouldn't be able to use the article to promote himself. This is not some non-public figure about whom personal information is being spread through no fault of their own; it's someone who tried to use wikipedia to promote himself and doesn't like the fact that the crimes he committed are mentioned in his Wikipedia page. People are perhaps less inclined to be sympathetic in such a situation than they are in e.g. the case of a marginally notable figure who doesn't want the details of their transition or divorce or whatever on wikipedia but has never committed any crimes and neverr sought any public attention. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, now that I dig deeper into the history. Definitely a case where WP:ABOUTME applies in spades. While there is some satisfaction of being able to say, "You made your bed, now lie in it", to me the far bigger factor here is its contribution to the encyclopedia, which as you said, isn't particularly great. The legal stuff is the only thing that separates it from the promo piece it was originally. I just don't see that every person who gets arrested, even multiple times, and gets their names in the paper deserves to have an article about it in Wikipedia. If we remove the legal stuff, we're back to a promo piece, but if we remove the entire article, voila, we've solved everyone's problem. This all seems like too much energy to waste over something that is likely viewed only by people he facebooks with.

This isn't the place for deletion discussions, though, and while I would give my $0.02, AFD is a whole different ballpark. I say toss it out there and see where the ball lands. Zaereth (talk) 02:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on the latter comment, and the tenor of the earlier discussions, I've nominated the article at AFD to start the discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Parish. Might as well see how it goes at AFD. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 13:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Zoe McLellan

@Thomas Basboll is edit warring on the Zoe McLellan article removing the section on her personal life. He claims the sources are WP:BLPGOSSIP which is not true since the multiple sources are WP:BLPSOURCES and the ex-husband's arrest and the arrest warrant against her for kidnapping are both supported facts. I have attempted to point out to the user why they should be the ones to provide an explanation for removing the material but they ignore me and keep reverting. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

My view is that all the information about Zoe McLellan's personal life is a hodgepodge of bad (TMZ) and primary (Fundrazr) sources that just reproduce insinuations and allegations made in an (obviously) acrimonious divorce. Journalists haven't taken a serious interest in this story for some time, so the conclusion, which it seems to be the purpose of the section to imply, that she has gone underground with a (kidnapped) child and is a fugitive from the law is, today, completely unwarranted. I tried for a while to clean it up, but eventually (months ago) decided that we (here at Wikipedia) simply don't know anything about her personal life and it's probably best not to have a section about it at all. @Jaydoggmarco's interest in this seems to be limited to re-instating, but not improving, a tendentious account of the worst thing that this living person may or may not have done. Unless one of us is willing to do a lot of careful work to provide a balanced account of her family life, I think, in accordance with WP:LIVING, we should just leave it out and the let article be about her (apparently past) acting career, for which she is (and should be) known. Thomas B (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The idea that i'm the only one pushing for this info to be added is false. @Jmg38 and @Robert Brockway both support this section being kept. Currently you are the only one edit warring and insisting that this info (despite being well sourced and regarding an ongoing case) shouldn't be included. It was included in the article until March 2023 when you removed it without discussion and then removed it again in August when it was re-added. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 07:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The most recent source in the article is over two years old, and yet it leaves the impression that McLellan "is a fugitive", which was literally the reason you gave for re-adding the content. We have no idea what her current life situation is and we should not leave the impression that we do. No one is following this story in the press. So putting it in means we'll be recording the worst moment of these people's lives until someone (like me) comes along and realizes that it is WP:CRUFT. Thomas B (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

She is a still a fugitive and the arrest warrant is active. https://twitter.com/MissingKids/status/1573821587245129729?lang=en https://www.missingkids.org/poster/NCMC/1418920/1 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:07, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know a lot about NCMEC or what we can conclude on the basis of that page. It seems to me like a primary source for a claim (@Jaydoggmarco suggests, "As of November 2023 she is still on the run") that is ultimately WP:OR. As far as I can tell, there is no recent journalism about her to cite. Thomas B (talk) 08:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"there is no recent journalism about her to cite" That's because she hasn't been found yet. It isn't WP:OR to suggest that she's still on the run since arrest warrants stay active until the suspect is arrested. Your lack of knowledge of how the criminal justice system (or how missing person databases) works is concerning. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 08:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

No need to be concerned. I'll take a look. I've left a peace offering on the talk page and will get back to it probably on the weekend. I'm looking forward to hearing what people who work on WP:LIVING biographies think. Cheers. Thomas B (talk) 09:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That source (fwiw National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, may or may not be WP:BLP-good) only speaks of 2021. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Like i have said before. Arrest warrants stay active unless the suspect is arrested. Plus her current age (48) is listed on the page which shows it's active. Am i the only one who understands how criminal law in the United States works? Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you understand WP:BLP and WP:OR? There is a chance on en-WP that the people you interact with aren't Americans or lawyers, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand both. I also understand how arrest warrants work (and i'm not a lawyer). The lack of updates doesn't mean the warrant is not active. It just means her and her child haven't been found yet. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

The lack of updates means that WP doesn't update, we leave it with 2021, if there is WP:BLPCRIME-good sources for that. Otherwise, we remove it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this interpretation. Unless we have sources explicitly saying "as of DATE, McLellan was still on the run" it's not Wikipedia's job to interpret the fact that the warrant is still active as meaning that she hasn't been caught yet, and it's also not WP:DUE for inclusion. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's updated because it shows her and her child's current ages. The missing kids database is reliable. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with Gråberg. But I would add that the remaining sentence, "In May 2021 an arrest warrant against McLellan was issued on charges of kidnapping her son," strongly implies that she remains on the run (as of the last edit to the WP page). Jaydogg seems confident that this is true (and that she remains free -- and out of the news --only because the police don't know where she is). I suspect the whole case may be lapsed and everyone has moved on with their lives after some legal hyperbole in an acrimonious divorce that, since she's not acting anymore, gossip columnists no longer care to cover. I don't know this for sure, fo course; I just think there's a significant chance that's the case. For this reason, I lean towards deleting that last sentence too. Thomas B (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Usually the police don't issue an arrest warrant for kidnapping unless there's probable cause. Also the boy is still in the missing kids database. Jesus christ does no one here know how the criminal justice system works? It's not just me saying this. Google it. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 10:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Can someone who's an expert in criminal law please chime in here and explain because i don't think i'm getting anywhere. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 10:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you are either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you want Wikpedia to claim that someone is "on the run" from the law based on a two-year-old source + an undated webpage + your legal expertise? Thomas B (talk) 11:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, I hope that website generally knows what its doing, but it doesn't matter for the 2023-issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd add that IMO using it for anything is a violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY anyway. While strictly speaking, it is not a simple primary source as a database for children at danger it's not really a reliable secondary source either. And Jaydoggmarco seems to be proving why using it is a terrible idea with their saying we need an expert in criminal law to chime in here. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Jaydoggmarco has been blocked for the time being. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And perhaps we might as well continue this on article-talk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

After your summary removal of the material I decided to dig deeper. I've been in contact with the lawyer for McLellan's ex-husband. He pointed me at documents which are all in the public domain. They are linked here. The warrant is active. McLellan is wanted by the LA County District Attorney's office right now. This information is pertinent to the article and should be included. Robert Brockway (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That link appears to be your website. What have you got that can be used per WP:BLP, WP:BLPPRIMARY etc? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Now I saw your comment on the talkpage, we can keep the discussion there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That source also using Wikipedia as one of its references so WP: CIRCULAR would also apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

• This seems a clear application of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#People accused of crime. A person who has not been convicted of, nor even arrested for, a serious crime, but merely has an arrest warrant; should not have this in the article. And hanging this off a source that has "was said", "claims", "appear", "no record", "no word", "we're told", "alleged", and merely that this claimant "believes" things, is very poor editing practice. There are no facts for a biography, here. Come back when a good source states things without weaselling out, in the normal journalism way, by reporting the claims and avoiding making direct statements of fact. Uncle G (talk) 13:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
  • There is a part of WP:BLPCRIME that makes this fuzzy, and that's the "For individuals who are not public figures phrase. I think we tend to view actors on the national scale -- as Zoe's parts made her -- to be public figures. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
    • That's a misinterpretation of that policy that would open the door to anyone who has public information "on a national scale" (which is highly parochial) being counted a "public figure". We are talking about the personal life of someone who has a public job and a private life. It is one of the worst instincts of the modern world to presume that anyone who has an acting job is fair game as a "public figure". That is an outright wrong presumption. Uncle G (talk) 14:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
      • I tend to agree with Uncle G here. We're talking about an article that has all of three sources. When talking about information of this nature, I think it's important to keep in mind that the term "public figure" has a very specific definition as defamation laws apply to this sort of thing. "A personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero." In Wikipedia policy, we often tend to make up our own definitions of such words to fit whatever suits our feelings, but simply starring in some TV shows doesn't make one a star or a celebrity. Most actors never reach celebrity status. Government officials are almost always considered public figures, which is necessary for journalists to do their jobs in the best interest of the people. Sometimes people can become public figures solely due to crimes they've committed or were only alleged to have committed, even if they were acquitted. Some examples of these are people like Charles Manson, Mary Kay Letourneau, or Casey Anthony (who was not convicted). But when you look at the sheer number of sources those stories generated, you can easily tell they've reached that celebrity status. When I look at the sources on this subject, I'm not seeing anything close. Zaereth (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Dominik Feri

See [26] diff - edit contains libelous statement. Revdel warranted? Fermiboson (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that since this posting, sourced information that he was just convicted of rape, removing a claim that he was a rapist seems unneeded... and distinguishing between being a rapist whose conviction gets covered and being a "prominent rapist" seems a pointless splitting of hairs. It ain't libelous if it's true, and we accept conviction as sufficient indication of truth in the general case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Mosab Hassan Yousef

Would appreciate some more eyes at Mosab Hassan Yousef. There seems to be quite a lot of WP:OR and improper use of sources. DFlhb (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Ramil Safarov and Thomas Goltz

Ramil Safarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Recently the user KhndzorUtogh made a huge edit (8K+ bytes) which contains lot's of violations of BLP. Previously I cleared up the article from a number of sources which were basically attack pages.

1. The title of the edit says I have found more stronger citations and added them, in addition to further expanding other parts. In fact he/she restored the previously deleted attack page called safarov.org. It's full of unsourced libelious mocking material. On the bottom of the page they put an axe photo and their email which starts with the word axe.No "About Us" or no information about the website owners. On the left page they put some government links to pretend like an official website.
2. Asbarez is another NONRS added to the article. It beloned to ARF (an ultra nationalist & irredentist political party in Armenia)
3. ArmenianWeekly yet another ARF owned partisan source. (English version of Hairenik see Contraversies)
4. Another problem is the editor added a source claiming it says "Safarov did not mention any insult in either his court trial, and made it very clear he killed Margaryan just because he was an Armenian." The source doesn't say such thing. Moreover user added a trial court as a second source which violates WP:BLPPRIMARY

Thomas Goltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Prior to the edits above the user made a huge edit (3.6K+) on the article of recently dead journalist Thomas Goltz

1. Armenian Weekly again
2. admitted Goltz had a pro-Azerbaijan bias - the source doesn't say such thing
3. Horizon Weekly - another ARF owned source that denies Khojaly massacre
4. Partly unsourced (no book name or page) OR that claims Goltz endorsed a conspiracy theory.Later on on I asked from that user to provide the page number so I could verify. I checked the source it just says Sumgait pogrom remain shrouded in wild conspiracy theories...Azeris say it was KGB
5. One more minor issue is that the user added Ms. Goltz's ethnicity without a source.

From this all I see is editor's ethno-nationalistic manner. He/she tries to discredit the author which repors Armenian war crimes, and portray the convinced murderer as vicious as possible. Aredoros87 (talk) 21:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

One great detail Aredoros neglected to mention is that they had just previously removed a great deal of content on both articles[27][28] without any kind of discussion, which includes sourced information such as Goltz's racism. I simply restored parts with new sources and also added newer text with sources.

Ramil Safarov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. What I had added was a pdf file of the original Hungarian court document, with the case number. The link was only included for user reference, as a previous RSN discussion decided would be needed.
2. Asbarez is not a perenial source and ARF is not "ultra nationalist".
3. Ibid
4. This is again the original court document, not on the article previously, which does not mention this.

Thomas Goltz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. Again not perenial or "ultra nationalist".
2. The source indeed states: "However, and I think he would admit this too, he saw the war from the other side which inevitably colours what he writes."
3. Again with the baseless slander of ARF.
4. I provided the page and chapter, so Aredoros is just completely lying. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to mention. Please be aware of ARF's (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) irredentist ideologies. They claim lands from 3 out of their 4 neighbors. And still ARF owned publications are being used on Wikipedia. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:34, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

One more thing I would like to note: According to WP:BLP, articles must adhere to NPOV and according to Wikipedia:BURDEN "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material"

Thanks. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Dax Dasilva article

Hi, I’m a public relations professional at NKPR, which represents Dax Dasilva. The Dax Dasilva article, which was recently added to Wikipedia, has one issue that I would like to raise here: there is an excessive emphasis on Dasilva’s sexual orientation in the present version of the article. It is appropriate in the Personal Life section, but should be removed elsewhere.

To that end, I propose the following: removing the third sentence of the lead, which at present reads as follows:

At the time of stepping down from his position as CEO, the Financial Post said he was one of only a few openly gay leaders of a major Canadian company.

And please also remove the following sentence from the second paragraph of the Career section:

He was one of the only openly gay leaders of a major Canadian company.

Its presence in the lead and Career section is unnecessary and makes that aspect of his biography too much of a focus. Heterosexuality is not mentioned in leads, there’s no reason why him being gay should be so prominently featured in the lead here.

Thanks very much for considering this request. Sunnyblu2023 (talk) 15:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

References

How many COI accounts have edited this article? I'm seeing that @Hindsight1984 just admitted his COI on the talk page. Is he working with you?

Removing the gay statement from the lead seems debatable to me, given that not all reliable sources mention that about him (though the fact that he is gay is relevant given that Lightspeed started out in a gay village and received early assistance from LGBT organizations). But I don't see any good reason to remove that information from the career section. SparklyNights 21:25, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Sunnyblu2023 I think it's reasonable to remove it from the WP:LEAD, so I did that. The Career section I'm less sure about, at least the source checks out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Osama Hammad

• Osama Hammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Clearly written with Bias, which is against the rules of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedabaids (talk • contribs) 19:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Mohamedabaids, the best place to raise your concerns initially should be at Talk:Osama Hammad. Schazjmd (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Western tulku

We need more BLP-educated eyes on Western tulku. While there are many issues with this article, I am particularly concerned that the sources used to support allegations against Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo do not rise above the level of hearsay and should be removed. This article also appears to be racially biased. It is supposed to be about Western tulkus, but it appears to be more critical of white tulkus (and previous versions actually used the word "Caucasian"). Overall, I believe that after any BLP issues have been resolved, that it should be merged into Tulku. We do not have separate articles for Western guru, Western lama, Western shaman or Western swami; why should Western tulkus be treated outside their religious context when these other examples are not? Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

One source being used that is highly questionable is an opinion piece in The Guardian, directing a question to the Dalai Lama. My understanding is that criticism of living persons must be sourced to news articles, not op-eds. Here's the source in question. It is clearly not a factual news article. Skyerise (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hyde, Marina (24 September 2015). "Has Steven Seagal proved you can be a Buddhist and a mascot for the arms trade?". the Guardian. Retrieved 31 October 2023.

Just so others know, this section is forumshopping from an ongoing ANI discussion, in addition to the AfD Skyerise started on the above article that, thus far, isn't going their desired way. Multiple other editors do not agree with them about the claimed racial bias of this article existing, considering it is a legitimate topic of reliable source coverage on the inherent subject matter directly. Silverseren^C 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This post predates my awareness of that AN/I thread, which was moved to ANI from elsewhere without anyone informing me at the time it was so moved. The opposing editor basically said "bring it on" when I suggested it was a BLPN matter. That's hardly forum shopping. I also only nominated it for deletion because the other editor said to. Later they claimed the remarks were sarcastic, but he can hardly complain about my following his advice, especially if it was insincerely given. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The Guardian has a clearly marked Opinion section (as most reputable sources do) and all of those article URLs begin with theguardian.com/commentisfree. The source is from their Lifestyle section. I don't see why we wouldn't treat it as factual reporting. Woodroar (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Cliff Eisen

Cliff Eisen has himself (he admits that user 67.81.21.189 is him in the revision of his article as of 00:43, 30 June 2022, and reverts the edit of admission 3 hours later) removed all information about his crime of sexual assault 5 times over 1.5 years. People were adding it back each time until about 1.5 years ago when the removal of this content at 03:35, 30 June 2022 went unnoticed. If I were to add this information again, he would surely just remove it as he has done 5 times in the space of 1.5 years.

Sexual assault claims are not alleged, they are detailed in this court case 'Miles v. New York University, 979 F. Supp. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)' at this link: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/979/248/1447086/ The New York University was not found guilty, but Eisen was by proxy by looking at the line in the court case result above; "The simple facts are, as the university was forced to admit, that Professor Eisen was engaged in indefensible sexual conduct directed at plaintiff which caused her to suffer distress and ultimately forced her out of the doctoral program in her chosen field."

I am not an expert at wikipedia, and I'm not sure I feel comfortable adding this information back to his page unless I know that he isn't going to personally remove it yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingScotsman72 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know any details about this person beyond what you have written but I would think:

1. WP:BLPPRIMARY advises against using primary sources, and explicitly says that when writing biographies of living people we "not use trial transcripts and other court records"
2. I'm not a legal expert, but I would think there was a substantial difference between someone's employer not contesting that the person did something, and that person actually being convicted of doing that thing. From WP:BLPCRIME: "For individuals who are not public figures [...] editors must seriously consider not including material [...] that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured."

So unless there are secondary sources reporting on a conviction I would think not to include these allegations. Mgp28 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What Mgp28 said. First we dont use court transcripts. Second, the subject has not been convicted of a crime. Third, that is a motion by the defense for summary judgement to dismiss, it is not the result of the whole case. (Which from a brief googling, it appears she lost against the university.) Fourth, its a civil action. Fifth, even if the civil suit against the university was won, it still wouldnt pass the thresholds to be included in a BLP. In order to state that someone has either committed a crime, or lost a civil case with the lower thresholds (think O.J. here) you need to a)have sourcing that explicitly says that, b)have sourcing that passes our requirements.

Interestingly, there is at least one peer reviewed paper which talks about the legal implications of the denied motion (that the technically defined sex of the accuser is irrelevent: if the alleged male assaulter thought they were female, it doesnt matter if they hadnt undergone gender reassignment surgery and were still male). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Tim Hayward (political scientist)

Tim Hayward (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist)#Academic review of Hayward's book about whether it's appropriate to include quotes from a review symposium about one of Hayward's books in the article. Whether or not to use material from the review has implications for POV/balance given that most of the rest of the article is about his controversial political views. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)