Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rei (talk | contribs) at 13:01, 9 December 2023 (→‎Sam Altman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:



    Sam Altman

    Following his ousting from OpenAI, there is renewed attention to an allegation against him made by his sister, which is now discussed by some reliable sources. Should it be mentioned? Please discuss at Talk:Sam Altman. Fences&Windows 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    While we're at it, for admin attention: Should this be revdel'd? Fermiboson (talk) 12:01, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    People on the talk page are allowed to criticize BLP's when relevant Trade (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No, talk pages are not exempt from BLP. If an editor makes potentially libelous claims, whether that is on the talk page or in article, that needs to be revdel'd. NPOV doesn't need to be adhered to on talk pages, but I feel that the diff above goes beyond NPOV issues. Fermiboson (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I was just made aware that this discussion exists over here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sam_Altman

    To copy the content from over there:

    Dispute overview

    The dispute started over this diff:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sam_Altman&diff=next&oldid=1186011017

    The issue went to RSN, at the request of (anti-inclusion) editor User:Nil Einne, with numerous additional sources listed as possibilities in case there were issues with the sources in the diff. RSN came back on the side that RS has been met, and the remaining issue to establish is DUE, not RS.

    Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others

    However, this has not resolved the conflict, with editors either continuing to pursue RS arguments (despite the RSN), or claiming that accusations are not appropriate BLP, even when labeled as accusations, are on a topic that they admit is serious, and are backed up by RS. Editors also generally do not dispute that the current article has bias problems and reads like hagiography; this was discussed in talk before the current topic came up.

    How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?

    [12] Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others

    How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?

    This request is for dispute resolution on the topic of whether "serious allegations" (the serious nature being agreed on by both sides), backed up by RS as determined by RSN, matching the description laid out in the sources and properly attributed to them, warrant a couple sentences in a BLP, or not.

    Also requested is a view on whether RS should stop being relitigated now that RSN has weighed in.

    Thanks! -- Rei (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary of dispute by Caeciliusinhorto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I came across this dispute yesterday, through the discussion at WP:BLPN#Sam Altman. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether we should include some mention of the allegations in the article, but it seems to me that in the existing discussion there is at best no consensus to include them, and the most recent version included in the article (removed in this edit) is clearly in violation of WP:BLPSPS which requires that we "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article".

    If Rei can suggest text that they want to include which complies with WP:BLP, then discussion can take place as to whether inclusion is due. Their repeated assertion that the allegations are serious and therefore the content is due for inclusion has no basis in our policy on WP:DUE WEIGHT and is not helping their case. Indeed, one might argue that the seriousness of the allegations means that the threshold for inclusion is higher – these are accusations of criminal behaviour against a living person, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat them carefully and sensitively.

    I further note that, contrary to Rei's claim, the RSN discussion did not conclude that the sources they mentioned were reliable. Cortador said that the Mary Sue article was an opinion piece; ActivelyDisinterested said that the previous discussion had not challenged reliability of sources but due weight; JPxG and GretLomborg discussed the appropriate use off opinion pieces. None of them actually comment on whether any of the sources Rei cited, other than the Mary Sue, are reliable for the statements Rei wants to use them for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

    I would request that third parties taking part in this discussion read the RSN discussion themselves. -- Rei (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any convincing arguments for inclusion at RSN or on the article talk page since first came across this in early October. I suggest a clear proposal with references. --Hipal (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal was this diff, but a long alternative list of RS sources was proposed for those who might object to specific sources, and of course any wording changes are welcome. For example, one person suggested removing the word "repeatedly" - this change meets no opposition.
    RSN is not the place for discussing arguments for inclusion; it's the place for discussing whether RS is met. There is a very long discussion on the talk page, with 40 posts after October. The TL/DR argument for DUE:
    * Even the opposition agrees that these are "serious allegations"
    * The article is a gross violation of NPOV (hagiographic / reading like an ad), something that was already under discussion on the talk page before this issue even came up.
    * The coverage of the allegations extends beyond mere rumors and gossip, with over a dozen reliable sources (passed RSN) from around the world reporting on the matter cited in talk. More can be provided if needed.
    * BLP does not preclude the inclusion of well-substantiated and notable controversies or allegations, and by contrast, demands NPOV, which the current article does not have. To be specific, BLP demands caution and responsibility in presenting contentious material, not omission. In this case, the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the international coverage from reliable sources, justifies their inclusion.
    * Much of the counter-inclusion arguments have revolved around second-guessing the decisions of RS sources to publish or their editorial policies. I must strongly emphasize that it is not our job in Wikipedia to do so. -- Rei (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would additionally like to note that the press coverage continues since I last looked. Even Elon Musk has tweeted about it, and that is now getting news coverage (example here: [1]). Arguing that this isn't notable seems an absurdity to me - again noting that even the opposition accepts that these are "serious accusations". -- Rei (talk) 08:59, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankfully for us all, "Elon Musk has tweeted about it" is not a consideration in whether or not Wikipedia covers something. Musk's tweeting about it appears to have been retweeting complaints that the media is not covering the allegations; if we take Musk seriously as a source that's evidence that inclusion would not be DUE. (And that Statesman article is the only reliable source I can find commenting on Musk's tweet, over a week ago; it's not "now getting news coverage")
    Re this diff, it's in total violation of WP:BLPSPS. "Wording changes" are not sufficient to make that proposal workable. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ""Elon Musk has tweeted about it" is not a consideration in whether or not Wikipedia covers something" - Whether news is covering something very much is a consideration on whether or not Wikipedia covers something. I am not in any way recommending inclusion of "Elon Musk commented about this" in the article - simply pointing out that news coverage and general discussion of the topic continues. Which is what matters for DUE.
    I've already linked over a dozen articles, and that was merely an example of continued coverage (on a topic for which, it must be stressed, is on a topic that rose up over three weeks ago - given our world's short news cycle, what percentage of things do you think mentioned in Wikipedia can claim that? How long, to quote from the current Sam Altman article, do you think people were talking about how he vacations in Napa or who he broke up with in 2012?). I only stopped because, it gets to the point where the number of articles linked from RS might as well be infinite, for all that the opposition is concerned. How many total RS would make you happy? If there's not a finite integer that would do so, then what's the point of listing more?
    "it's in total violation of WP:BLPSPS" - I must quote here: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source". And WP:RS of secondary sources was established by RSN. Hence primary material may augment it. That said, I have no objection to omitting the primary augmentation and only linking the secondary, if that is your concern. -- Rei (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Divya Dwivedi

    An editor (User:Beccaynr) is frequently nagging for 3 weeks that attributing the statement "that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi" to Divya Dwivedi is a WP:BLP violation.

    But the cited source clearly says: "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India." And also "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea".

    Then we also have her own article from 2019 which is here or you can click here for full preview. It says "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised. Although many upper caste leaders found the foreign term “Hindu” objectionable. Gandhi also contributed to the later invention and promotion of Hindi with Madan Mohan Malaviya and others. Hindi was explicitly conceived as the language of the “Hindus”."

    I am sure this not a BLP violation, but Wikipedia process certainly requires us to entertain certain disruptive editing as a part of dispute resolution and this is why I am here. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Beccaynr is quite correct that we cannot interpret what she has written in any way, doing so it a WP:Syn violation. So that means for any interpretation we only have The Print. But The Print is largely just quoting her in a debate so isn't that useful either. In any case, I'm fairly confused what is being asked here. Beccaynr doesn't seem to be trying to revert mentioning the controversy completely. Instead they have reverted your attempt to change the wording [2]. Beccaynr's version seems significantly better to me since they are quoting Dwivedi which since the only sources we have are what she has written and the report on what she said in a debate, reduces the risk we may mislead people on what she has said. (It doesn't eliminate it since it's easily possible to mislead with an entirely accurate quote by taking it out of context etc.) 08:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also as a reminder in BLP cases, WP:BLPUNDEL says that removals on good faith BLP grounds can only be readded if there is consensus. It doesn't matter how long the text has been stable. Nil Einne (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nil Einne If you are really saying that quoting Divya Dwivedi is more important then what was wrong with this edit by another editor? The part in question is: "In 2019, she co-authored an article with Shaj Mohan titled "Courage to Begin" in The Indian Express, she wrote "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised."
    It clearly quoted and cited Divya Dwivedi's own article which she has referred to often, such as here on Print article in the words that "I jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters in an essay published in the Gandhi special issue of The Indian Express, titled ‘Courage to Begin’." 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I discussed the full text of that addition on the article talk page, before [3], [4], and after [5], [6], [7] it was made. The co-authored Indian Express article is currently listed in the Selected works section of the article; discussion on the article talk page about the list of works includes: Talk:Divya_Dwivedi#Proposal_for_Selected_works_section. Beccaynr (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nil Einne: Can you answer the question that was asked above with regards to citing Divya Dwivedi's own article since that is exactly what she had also said in the debate instead of systematically removing the quote which Beccaynr is doing? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 13:25, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Aman Kumar Goel, I removed your recent addition of a quote that appears to be selected by you from the article [8] with the edit summary "Rm per WP:BLPUNDEL, being discussed at BLPN, out-of-context and misattributed, editor-selected OR", and this is shorthand for policy-based reasoning that I have stated in the diffs in my comment above related to BLP and NPOV policies, and issues related to editors selecting quotes instead of relying on independent and reliable secondary sources to determine what is WP:DUE to include.
      In your most recent addition [9], your edit summary states "nothing wrong with this", but there appear to be several policy-based problems:
      1) this is written as if "she" wrote the quote, instead of accurately attributing the Indian Express article to two authors; I have previously noted this as an issue with potential BLP problems.
      2) this quote is also cited to the longform journalism Mathrubhumi source, which could make it appear as if the journalist highlighted this quote, which they did not. Even if this citation is removed, it still appears to be WP:UNDUE and disproportionate to include an editor-selected quote. The placement of the quote also seems to make it appear as if the journalist then comments on the quoted aspect instead of on the Indian Express article as a whole, which seems to create an undue emphasis and potential misrepresentation of the journalism source.
      3) this quote appears related to the dispute over the editor-selected Gandhi-related content in the 2019 news report in ThePrint, and as previously discussed, there also does not appear to be independent, reliable and secondary sources focusing on this. The debate quote that independent, reliable and secondary sources focused on are included in the article. I mention this because the 2019 debate is related to criticism/harassment/death threats against Dwivedi, and WP:BLPBALANCE also discusses the use of reliable secondary sources, and the responsible, conservative, and disinterested presentation of material.
      4) if this quote is included, and if the disputed editor-selected content about Gandhi from the 2019 news report in ThePrint is restored, this would seem to have the effect of creating an original interpretation about Dwivedi that is not supported by independent, reliable, and secondary sources. There would be an undue focus on Gandhi-related statements even though such sources do not focus on this. In the context of independent, reliable secondary sources that discuss the years-long campaign of distortion of what she has said, along with social media campaigns of harassment and death threats, there appear to be significant BLP policy reasons for us to exercise care with sourcing and the development of this article.
      Beccaynr (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Print is a secondary source which you have rejected.
    The Indian Express is a primary source which you are also rejecting.
    Your entire argument is focused on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
    Now instead of filibustering, you need to drop the WP:STICK. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:51, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The use of ThePrint has been discussed here and at the article talk page in the discussion section referenced above; it is one source close to the event that highlights a quote also highlighted by independent, reliable secondary sources published years later, and that quote is included in the article. Policy-based objections to the use of an editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express article has been discussed on the article talk page and here, as noted in my comments above. According to WP:BLPUNDEL, it appears discussion should continue and consensus should be developed for inclusion of this disputed content, instead of e.g. the recent attempts to restore it while this discussion is pending [10], [11]. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You cannot reject Indian Express article since Divya Dwivedi has said she has "jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters" on that article as mentioned right above.[12] See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 16:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have outlined the policy-based reasons above - this is not a rejection of the co-authored Indian Express article, which is referenced in the article and placed in context by independent and reliable secondary sources. This is about the addition of an editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express article, that does not appear to have support in independent and reliable secondary sources for inclusion according to WP:NPOV/WP:DUE/WP:PROPORTION policies, and further raises issues related to WP:BLPBALANCE, as well as misrepresentation and misuse of a source in the article, i.e. as if a secondary source emphasizes the quote when it does not.
    That Dwivedi referenced the entire co-authored article as context does not appear to support an editor selecting one quote to include in the article, framing it as if only she wrote it, and placing it in such a way that makes it appear as if a secondary source emphasized this quote. Beccaynr (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "selecting one quote to include in the article" is necessary because that it was behind the controversy.
    Since you are rejecting Print over that particular quote, Indian Express should work out. But here you are simply out to WP:CENSOR the quote anyhow with this absurd WP:WIKILAWYERING which is not gonna work. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not appear to have independent and reliable secondary sources indicating that this editor-selected quote is what was behind the controversy. Instead, we have multiple independent and reliable secondary sources supporting the inclusion of a quote from the NDTV debate, which was quoted in the 2019 Print news report as well as independent and reliable secondary sources years later, which indicates (including per WP:NOTNEWS) that this quote has enduring encyclopedic significance. This quote is in the article, because it has support from multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.
    The editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express article has been removed because it does not appear to have support according to core content policies, including WP:NPOV, and because there are significant WP:BLP policy concerns related to Dwivedi being targeted for harassment and death threats, both recently and in a campaign reported to have extended for years, and how this is reported to be related to her statements being taken out of context.
    The lack of independent, reliable secondary support for inclusion of this editor-selected quote, the attribution as if only she wrote it, and the placement of the quote as if there is secondary support when there is not and as if a secondary source emphasizes this aspect when it does not, all appear to be policy-based reasons for exclusion. Beccaynr (talk) 17:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Print is presenting her own statement she said it live as confirmed from the video and it caused the controversy. Why you are censoring the statement? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 17:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel as if I have explained the policy reasons to have high-quality sources supporting inclusion, both on the article talk page and in this discussion, but I will also refer to the earlier comments by Nil Einne in this discussion, [13], [14], because I think these comments are relevant to the policy and sources discussion. Beccaynr (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't recall a single message of yours that has made any sense so far.
    Print.in is WP:RS and that's all you need to know. The entire article lacks "high quality sources" (academic sources) and according to your logic we should delete entire article.
    Nil Einne is saying that it is better to use her own writing when in doubt but you are removing her own write-up on Indian Express with regards to this dispute. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Care has been taken to include independent, reliable secondary sources, including academic sources and longform journalism in the article. I have planned to continue working on this article, but this present dispute appears to need attention instead.

    I think it would be best to permit Nil Einne to participate further if they wish; from my view, our policies discourage the use of original editor judgment to select a contentious quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay, which appears to have no support for inclusion in independent and reliable secondary sources, as well as significant BLP policy implications based on the context reported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.

    There are additional issues I have outlined related to the recent attempts, e.g. the placement, attribution, and apparent misrepresentation/misuse of a secondary source and additional BLP policy issues. Beccaynr (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not a single academic source used in entire entire. All we have is interviews and news sources, thus your use of the term "high quality sources" is absurd.
    There is no WP:BLP issue when you are citing the statement made by the subject. That is the case with Indian Express.
    Similarly, there is no concern over the sourcing when what we have is a video that is being quoted by a reliable outlet. That is the case of Print.
    Your entire dispute is based on nothing but WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it should be clear from the references in the article that academic sources are used. As to this disputed content, in a diff from the article talk page [15] noted above, an academic (professor Anthony Ballas) is among the later sources highlighting the quote from the NDTV interview included in the article. And a source previously noted on the article talk page [16], Rajesh Selvaraj, (referring to a more recent France24 interview: "Then, many friends and I watched in horror as her name began to trend in social media and threats being thrown like chaff and dust into the wind, while her words were being distorted and mutilated to mislead the people by the far right media") is a professor of Tamil literature and philosophy [17]. And it is WP:BLP policy that tells us, Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources; this discussion also includes WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE policies. Beccaynr (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, in the comment at the beginning of this discussioin, the IP includes a quote from a subheadline in The Print, which is not a reliable source. The related Dwivedi quote from this news source summarized in this article for WP:BLPBALANCE is

    “There are several academic studies on this much discussed matter. One can refer to D.N. Jha (Looking for a Hindu Identity), Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron (Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity), and the Census of India report of 1921,” she said. “I jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters in an essay published in the Gandhi special issue of The Indian Express, titled ‘Courage to Begin’.”

    This offers context for the 2019 NDTV interview as reported, by referencing a lengthier joint statement and academic studies, and this context appears to help make the article fair to the subject according BLP policy. Beccaynr (talk) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    None of those sources are academic sources. They are simply news sources published by news outlets.
    You don't even know what WP:SCHOLARSHIP means.
    What you are doing is simply whitewashing. The Print meets the definition of WP:RS here and you don't get to twist the statement of the subject according to your own convenience. If you have issue with The Print then take it to WP:RSN where you are absolutely going to fail given earlier discussions about this outlet before.
    See the last long discussion which concluded Print.in is reliable: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_248#Scroll,_OpIndia,_The_Wire,_The_Quint,_The_Print,_DailyO,_postcardnews,_rightlog_etc.
    Now that I have debunked your false assertion that the Print.in unreliable, are you up for self-reverting already? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As an initial matter, I am tiring of what has seemed to be a lot of unhelpful personalization directed at me during these discussions, and I think it would be helpful to improve efforts to focus on the content.
    I recently pointed out that the IP range editor quoted an unreliable portion of the Print source, and cited the guideline to support this; what is discussed here at length is the difference between using multiple independent and reliable secondary sources to support inclusion of a quote from the NDTV interview (per NPOV and BLP policies, included in the article) and an original editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay that creates undue emphasis without such support (removed because this does not reflect NPOV, appears to be OR, and particularly with the contentious context, contrary to BLP policy).
    This dispute is about more than the reliability of The Print, which is included as a source for content in the article; it appears the reliability of the non-headline portions of the 2019 ThePrint source does not give an editor the ability to conduct original interpretation about what quote from the Indian Express essay to emphasize, to misattribute the quote, to place the content in a way that seems to misrepresent another source, and to add content that appears contrary to NPOV and BLP policies. Beccaynr (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we have two sources here for the concerning statement she directly made in this video, 1) Print.in, which is being being deleted for practically no reason. There is no evidence if its not a reliable source or it has engaged in any malice. 2) IndianExpress, but it is being removed because the article was co-authored by her despite she has taken full responsibilty for it. I don't see any sense in either removals. Dympies (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify, there are 3 sources cited for the quote from the 2019 NDTV interview video that is included in the article; Mathrubhumi (Nov. 2022), Protean (Ballas, 2023), and The Print, (2019). This has not been deleted - it is included in the article, because multiple independent and reliable secondary sources highlight the quote.
      The Indian Express source is a co-authored essay by Dwivedi and Mohan that was written before the 2019 NDTV interview. The co-authored essay is referred to in the 2022 longform Mathrubhumi journalism source, and by Dwivedi in statements to ThePrint (2019) after the 2019 NDTV interview. The Indian Express article is referred to in the article, and included in the Selected works section. There have also been attempts by an editor to add a quote from this essay, without similar independant, reliable, secondary sources supporting inclusion of the quote. In the Print, Dwivedi referred to the co-authored essay as a whole, i.e. a lengthier statement, not the quote. And in the recent additions [18], [19], [20], the placement of the quote also appears to misattribute the quote and misrepresent the secondary source cited, and misrepresent how the secondary source is used after the quote.
      Dwivedi has also been for years, and recently, subject to a campaign of harassment and death threats; this BLP issue is based on sources, including one I noted here that discusses her statements being distorted as part of this campaign [21]. It therefore seems that much more important to rely on independent and reliable secondary sources, not original editor interpretation, to determine what, if anything, is due to include and appropriate according to BLP policy from the co-authored Indian Express essay published before the 2019 NDTV interview. Beccaynr (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      As further context, the previous attempted addition of the disputed editor-selected content [22] included the non-RS portion (the subheadline) from ThePrint as a quote in the citation - this non-RS portion from ThePrint is what the IP range editor referred to in their opening comment here.
      This previous attempted addition also included the editor-selected quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay. I revised this addition [23], [24], and it was discussed on the article talk page [25], [26], [27]. This is the current version of the article section. Beccaynr (talk) 05:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:FILIBUSTER. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 08:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The new writes and edites come to make subject article as reports in far right media and media social campaigns against the subject. This can be libel also not? Terrible business. Guillaume R Legrand (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How come your all edits are related to this subject? Just because the imagined "far right media" said 2+2=4 it doesn't mean we can ignore that information if it is coming from a reliable source. You can read WP:NLT. Dympies (talk) 18:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    if BLP concern is serious bad statement wrong attribution should be removed immediately? I read this on page BLP. 122.177.103.219 (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are multiple sources in the article that discuss the campaign of harassment against Dwivedi, and several have been noted in this discussion as well, including Mathrubhumi (Nov. 2022), Protean (Ballas, 2023) and Rajesh Selvaraj, noted above and in a previous article talk page discussion (referring to a more recent France24 interview: "Then, many friends and I watched in horror as her name began to trend in social media and threats being thrown like chaff and dust into the wind, while her words were being distorted and mutilated to mislead the people by the far right media") who is a professor of Tamil literature and philosophy [29].
      And to reiterate the issue with ThePrint, it appears that at the beginning of this discussion and at various points in the article edit history, the subheadline, which is not a reliable portion of the source, has been used and relied on to support contentious content. But these are not the only issues with the disputed content; issues related to NPOV and OR policies are also discussed here and at the article talk page, as well as how content has been attempted to be placed in the article, and how this appears to misuse and misrepresent other sources already in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is using the "headline" of Print source but the article itself[30] which notes:
    "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea of a “false Hindu majority”."
    "“Hindu Right is the corollary of the idea that India is a Hindu majority population and this is a false majority. The Hindu religion was invented in the early 20th century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India…” Dwivedi said on the show that discussed Gandhi and politics."
    "“In fact, religious minorities have been a victim of this false majority and Gandhi has played a very significant role in its construction. He has helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity…” she said."
    "Dwivedi added, “He (Gandhi) was one of the many upper caste leaders who constructed this origin for this polity but today we must discard it…”"
    It is more than clear. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion opens with the subheadline quoted by the IP range editor and it is content that you have added to the article as well; a quote that has been included the article is a quote supported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources (per NPOV); what has been removed is from one news source (WP:NOTNEWS), selected based on editor judgment (WP:OR), without WP:BLPBALANCE. And as previously noted, following the usual policies appears to be that much more important because of the significant and sourced BLP issues related to this subject and the risks related to placing quotes out-of-context, or creating undue emphasis on her statements. Beccaynr (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NOTNEWS does not apply on the sources but the coverage of the event.
    You are not against the coverage of this event but without pointing her statement but that is not going to happen because the readers will not know how the controversy even happened.
    Your WP:WIKILAWYERING is not helping your cause. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We have multiple independent and reliable secondary sources that discuss how the controversy happened, and these are included in the article to support content about various controversies, including a quote from the 2019 NDTV debate, and a secondary source discussing the co-authored Indian Express essay. We cannot add original research to this by independently selecting quotes from the Indian Express essay, and independently selecting a quote from ThePrint news report, to create a new narrative/POV that independent, reliable, and secondary source do not appear to support according to NPOV policy.
    Initially, it appeared as if both you and the IP range editor had used an unreliable portion from the Print subheadline to support independent selection of a quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay, even though this would still seem to be problemative per policy even if it was an RS; now that it appears clear that the subheadline is not an RS according to the guideline, it seems as if we have made some progress with this dispute. I think we can now focus on using independent and reliable secondary sources to support contentious content related to Dwivedi's scholarship, particularly scholarship that has been reported to have resulted in campaigns of harassment and threats. This seems to be the most careful and cautious approach going forward, and most in line with the framework and spirit of the applicable CTOPs and BLP policy. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody used headline for information. I have already debunked this baseless claim by you just minutes ago but you are ignoring it.[31] Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You have just filed an ANI report against me, so I am not able to continue focusing on this discussion for now; however, I added diffs to the ANEW report that you recently filed against me of where you had added the headline content to the article [32], and I included diffs of the IP range editor's use in this discussion [33], on the article talk page [34], and in an article edit summary [35]. Beccaynr (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider it closed because the page is now protected. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 19:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Article talk page discussion

    Sam Bankman-Fried and "fraudster"

    See section at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried about use of the word fraudster, in the first sentence of the lead section. Numerous editors have objected to this term, due to its tone issues. The same issue came up at Elizabeth Holmes, the RfC LINK found use of the term problematic and it was removed from that article. Nevertheless, a small number of users have been insistent and adamant in labeling Sam a "fraudster" vs more objective and simple phrasing, like convicted felon (he is convicted of felony fraud and felony conspiracy). -- GreenC 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, it sounds really awkward to use a British English term in an article written about an American, in the US, written in American English. It's a bit like using the term "lorry" to refer to ford trucks. The term is really not used much in American English. Second it's a rather hollow term anyhow, and is far too open to interpretation. Instead of telling me he's a fraudster, it's far better from the reader's point of view to simply show me. People who are not writers often don't realize that, but from the reader's point of view, it's just an empty label and comes off as unnecessary filler. The old saying goes, "Show. Don't tell", and it's just as true in encyclopedic writing as it is for Stephen King or CS Lewis. At best, it's poor, uninformative, and lazy writing. Zaereth (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been a huge issue in multiple articles, using up lots of time and energy. I don't know what it is, but some editors become obsessed over wanting to use this word, particularly right after a conviction. We really need specific guidance about it in the MOS, BLP etc.. somewhere, to avoid the time sink, it's been disruptive (there is now an ANI thread open). Elizabeth Holmes this debate went on for years in multiple threads ending in an RfC. Then editors turn around and say that RfC doesn't carry any weight in other articles where fraudster is used, and it starts all over again. I'm not a linguist and I have trouble expressing all the issues, but if anyone wants to create WP:FRAUDSTER that would be super helpful. -- GreenC 05:45, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's an issue that arises here often too, but not limited to that one label unfortunately. A lot of it, I believe, comes from the way our brains (and likely the brains of all mammals and any other animal with an amygdala) are wired. We're emotional creatures who find it easier to use stereotypes and emotionally charged labels rather than look at the facts and actions of a subject. Like it or not, the way we process information, decide what to store, what to discard, what to ignore, and even what to recall, it's all based on our emotions, and thus it's easy to see if we can eliminate those pesky facts and actions we can go directly for that emotional reaction. (For more, see: User:Zaereth#Little boxes) It's a problem that has existed since the beginning of time, and is the root of all prejudice, propaganda, and blind hatred. It's a difficult thing for most people to set aside, because most people are not even consciously aware of their own prejudices. The problem, of course, is that it serves the writer's needs and desires, not the reader's. It's damn difficult to remove those rose-colored glasses and see things from another's point of view, in particular the reader's. That's what separates the good writers from the wannabes.
    What I think people need to understand is that writing well is hard work. Writing neutrally is even harder. It's very unnatural, and takes great work, patience, and practice for even the most talented of writers. A story is told through the action alone. Labels are really meaningless, for they mean something different through the lens of each person's own colored glasses. Showing me what the subject actually did, now that's the real story, and anything else is just fluff which distracts from the real story. Fluff which any good editor will be ruthless about cutting out. That's why I say, using these types of labels is simply poor, lazy writing. As Zinsser's law says, "Easy writing makes for hard reading."
    I think what we really lack are policies and guidelines on good writing practices. For example, if I write, "Darth Vader is evil." it's an emotional term, but is devoid of any substance or value for the reader, and frankly is both condescending and boring as hell. If, on the other hand, I say, "Darth Vader blew up an entire planet and killed any of his generals who made a mistake." I have gotten the same point across, giving the reader the impression they've arrived at that conclusion all on their own. It's not boring nor condescending, but tells an actual story, which in turn is far more effective and believable to the reader. If people only understood the power of good writing, I think they'd be far less apt to try pushing for these silly labels in the first place. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has very little on how to write well. Zaereth (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Zaereth, Thank you for this thoughtful and examined reply. I completely agree Wikipedia lacks good guidance on how to write well. I'm guilty of it myself at times. Wikipedia has a number of common problems, another is repetition of information, the essay WP:ELVAR one of my favorite essays on Wikipedia, it has had real influence on my writing. It was even mentioned in The New Yorker ie. essays can have real influence on culture, even outside Wikipedia. A similar essay for labels would be helpful. The recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_53 was an attempt to modify the BLP for labels, it didn't succeed but could be material for building an influential essay. Along with the material you posted above. Within the essay there can be sub-sections for certain common problems, like "fraudster", where WP:FRAUDSTER lands. -- GreenC 17:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Music Man is a fraudster. BLPs are convicted of fraud. Sennalen (talk) 17:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the great example. Do you see how utterly childish that sounds? Sticks and stones may break one's bones, but names are meaningless blather. The above statement actually tells me zilch about the music man. The thing is, when people start calling others names, they are almost always describing themselves unconsciously, and even children know that, hence the phrase "I know you are, but what am I", or "I'm rubber, you're glue..." I know the stuff I'm talking about is not what they teach us in grade school, but is stuff they teach in advanced writing classes, but seriously, why would anyone think such terms carry any weight or have any impact whatsoever? It's what I call flat-Earth thinking. It actually has the opposite effect than the one intended. Reader's take it as a silly, childish remark without any real meaning. It most certainly doesn't come off as informative nor professional. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the point Sennalen was making is that TMM is a fictional character, so BLP vio isn't an issue? Valereee (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That, plus the folksy sound of "fraudster" fits the period setting of the musical. Sennalen (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the point, and still think it was a great example. If it was a British musical, I would be inclined to agree, but "fraudster" is not an American English term, as any dictionary will attest, so it doesn't really fit that particular musical. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fraudster isn't not AmEng, I don't think. It may be more BrEng, but it's definitely used here. Valereee (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Merriam-Webster says that fraudster is "chiefly British", but American sources (CNN, CNBC, Washington Times) use the word specifically to describe SBF, so whether or not it is acceptable AmEng seems like a really pointless hair to split, unless anyone wants to seriously suggest that it would be acceptable to refer to SBF in the lead as a conman or swindler or any other suitably Americanised equivalent. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Valereee (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you all are conflating two different points, a tangent about a musical and the entirely separate issue of statements that are no more than conclusions without any substance. But whatever floats your boat. You do you. As an analogy, watch any court show on TV. Judge Judy. The People's Court. Judge Mablean. In nearly every episode you see the judge say, "That's a conclusion. I don't want to hear your conclusions. Just tell me what happened!" Usually they have to tell people multiple times, and those people often end up losing their case simply because they could get out of their own way. Now, imagine the reader is your judge. The average reader is not an idiot, so its counterproductive to treat them as such. Reader's know when they're being talked down to, being led by the nose, and being fed conclusions they may or may not arrive at by the actual events. When they read a person's writing, you can bet your ass they are judging the writer very harshly. Nobody wants our conclusions. They just want the story delivered as concisely and precisely as possible. And that's not only true for bios, but scientific articles, technical articles, geographic articles, and even articles about musicals or science fiction. I know it seems counterintuitive, but people more often than not reject what they're told outright. They're more apt to believe what they're shown. No matter how one tries to rationalize it, the only reason for using such labels is because it makes the writer feel good on some unconscious level. Not because it's helpful to the reader. Zaereth (talk) 12:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what points you're saying are being conflated? Valereee (talk) 12:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this concern in general and can't see any reason why an encyclopedic article about a BLP would include "fraudster" in the lead other than perhaps some odd quote. I personally think the label applies but that is different than thinking we should include it in an encyclopedic article. Springee (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue of labels continues to cry out for better guidance, and BLP guidance would seem to be the page to include such guidance. Perhaps there is a better solution, or the Essay on the topic the OP suggested. I think the general idea here is that some guiding text ought to be developed to more quickly resolve these many endless, redundant rhetorical battles. (This would not be the place, specifically, to re-argue the issue of "fraudster" on the Sam Bankman-Fried article, that would be better done on its Talk page.) Per the previous discussion on this page, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_53, I tried to get some text started - roundly rejected, though I was practically begging for modifying/developing edits for weeks. I agree it is not a simple or easy task. Often a way to get started is just to put something down, and immediately notice that it is incorrect. But, it appears that many of you can't get started unless you are presented with an edit war (or the appearance of such); I suspect you deal with such things so often, they are now part of your DNA. Wikipedians are brilliant and great writers (particularly those that patrol such pages as this), and I am sure you all can develop some text. If only we had some means or method to communally and quickly develop text. Bdushaw (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Djair Parfitt-Williams

    Editor claiming to be subject of article says name now Djair Parfitt and has deed poll and passport to verify this. Not sure what normal procedure is here. Anyone?--Egghead06 (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • We have to go with what reliable sources say. We can't use passports or other such official documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY. The usual procedure is to revert, and then try to explain to the subject why it was reverted, and what they can do to change it within the scope of policy. If this is truly the subject, one option at their disposal is to get this information out to the people we use as RSs. Give interviews. Hire a PR agent. Stuff like that. We usually title an article to the name a subject is best known by, which is not always their real name, but by that used most predominantly in RSs, but either way, RSs are what we need. If they can find such sources and bring them to the talk page, that would be their best bet, but we need secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • After the whole Lourdes debacle, we really need to demand proof when people claim to be notable people. Without this person providing proof that they really are who they claim to be, then we shouldn't take any action. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:32, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry. "Lourdes debacle"? What on Earth is that? I think the action taken by Egghead was correct, to simply revert the page-move made by the subject (if that's who they truly are; I usually give people the benefit of the doubt if for no other reason than to be courteous, all the while keeping in mind it may be a hoax). I really don't think the person claiming to be the subject needs to prove who they are, otherwise we could just accept their passport. All they really need to do is provide the types of sources we can use. Zaereth (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you been living under a rock? The former administrator User:Lourdes revealed themselves earlier this month to be a sock of the banned former administrator User:Wifione. It's discussed in this recent Signpost piece Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2023-11-06/Arbitration report. What the piece doesn't mention is that in their private correspondence and in their edits, the Lourdes account pretended to be the Spanish singer Russian Red, and they got away with it for close to 8 years because they were never properly VRT checked to verify who they said they were. We simply cannot take IP/anonymous users at their word that they are notable people without VRT verification. That said I don't think that verification would be necessary here if the IP user can find better sources to change the title. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess so, because this is the first I've heard of it, or the names Lourdes and Wilfone for that matter. But there are many places in the bowels of Wikipedia where I never go, and places where stuff like that happens (ANI/ARBCOM/etc.) I tend to avoid like the plague. Never read the Signpost before. My time online is usually limited to just a few minutes a day, and some days none at all. (Too much I'd rather be doing in real life.) Still, I think when people come here claiming to be the subject, it's a different matter than what you're describing with a sockpuppet admin. It happens here at BLPN all the time. Many times they are who they say, just wanting to correct something they see as a mistake in their article, and it comes off as rude and insulting to start off by claiming they are not. When it comes to editing articles, it really doesn't matter who someone claims to be, because even with proof of identity we can't just take their word for any claims they make, or else we'd just be facebook. Whether real or fake, we still need RSs in order to make such changes, so it really doesn't matter who they are in real life. The requirements are the same either way, so I've never found it productive in such cases to even bring it up. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fair enough about not knowing about it given your circumstances. I agree about your point about needing RS (which I stated above). I also agree that it is always a good idea to treat account/IPs claiming to be notable people respectfully, regardless if they are verified or not. My point is that they need to be gently but firmly told to verify themselves, not because we're trying to be mean, but because we want to avoid people being impersonated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whilst you two are catching up on current events, don't lose sight of the fact that two potential sources have already been offered twice, days before this came to this noticeboard, once in the edit summary of Special:Diff/1186677382 and once on the talk page in Special:Diff/1186864162. Uncle G (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that www.transfermarkt.co.uk is not considered a reliable source among those familiar with editing football articles. Use of it as a source in a football article will almost always see it removed very quickly.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Monty Bennett

    This Texas real estate mogul has made "publishing and politics his new battlegrounds".[1] Should the article include or exclude a sentence summarizing RS reports that he said he was present outside the Capitol during the January 6 United States Capitol attack?[2] There have been reverts and deletions, and talk page discussion may be at an impasse. More contributors to the article could be helpful. Llll5032 (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at articles on people who were involved to varying degrees with January 6, I note that we don't even have an article on Zachary Rehl, who was one of the organizers of the event, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison for his part in it. There is some sense of perspective and prioritization that needs to be developed here. We can start by delineating the various degrees of involvement and participation of people who were indeed involved in the event. BD2412 T 20:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Every case is different, so could we simply follow RS emphases? Llll5032 (talk) 07:01, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    BD2412 and I have both been active in the article for some months. Some additional editors' perspectives could perhaps help us arrive at a clearer consensus. Llll5032 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    1. ^ Sisson, Patrick (May 1, 2023). "The Many Battles of Texas Real Estate Mogul Monty Bennett". The Real Deal. Retrieved 2023-07-31.
    2. ^ Rogers, Tim (2022-03-23). "Monty Bennett Recounts His January 6 Experience at the Capitol". D Magazine. Retrieved 2023-11-05.

    Chris Roner

    Chris Roner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Someone posted without sourcing, in the middle of an irrelevant paragraph, the name of the subject's three minor children (here). I've reverted it, but should it be revdeleted for concerns of child protection? Thanks a lot. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    gerald posner

    The last remark regarding Case closed has no citation and is vague. It is a highly respected work and only disregarded by Conspiracy theorists who often lack evidence or present hearsay as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redonefifty (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Redonefifty, I think this is what you meant: [36]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Ferguson (news presenter)

    There has been a persistent alteration of the spousal information (from Mrs Jayne Ferguson to Dennis Ferguson, a convicted Australian child sex offender who died in 2012.) by 120.19.142.138 on 27 September 2023, 120.17.162.40 on 16 September 2023, and 120.18.61.11 on 6 September 2023. This vandalism is distressing not only to Mr Mark Ferguson but also to his wife. I note the Wikipedia policy is to issue warnings to desist, but this is not practicable with anonymous posts. I respectfully suggest that this page needs to be protected (which I have requested) and would welcome any other advice from this noticeboard regarding appropriate action. Adamm (talk • contribs)

    Descriptions of BLPs

    I've been following the discussion at Talk:Klete Keller regarding non-specific descriptions and also lede content when it comes to "convicted felons". However, I've also seen what has happened on the R. Kelly page; also a convicted felon. Not only does his "short description" state: "American R&B singer and sex offender" but the very first lede sentence reads: "American convicted child sex offender and former singer, songwriter, and record producer." This was something editors at the Klete Keller page discussed at length over with edits and reversions as to what to even call the BLP. They finally settled on "convicted participant". The R. Kelly page even displays a mug shot in the infobox. Danny Masterson's page does not read like R. Kelly's and he was convicted of rape and sentenced to 30 years in prison. What am I missing here? Is "known for" subjective or objective? and how does one decide? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    In the case of Danny Masterson, the obvious difference is we have an RfC which even if we ignore any new or inactive editors, seems to strongly lean against such a mention in the first sentence Talk:Danny Masterson#Request for comment on use of "rapist", "sex offender" or "convicted" in lead paragraph and short description with a reasonably high level of participation. Despite it being an explicit part of the RfC, it's somewhat less clear on the short description (as a bunch of editors didn't clearly comment on this) although also seems to strongly lean against it.

    We don't have a similar RfC for R. Kelly. Someone could start one although I wouldn't count on a similar result.

    As for why the community feels that way, while I can't say for sure, I think there are perceptions differences between the two especially since Kelly has been dodged by accusations since very early in his career and these accusations have involved quite a number of alleged victims. So now that we have some were convictions are secured and it's not simply alleged it's seen almost as significant as his career and so belonging in the lead sentence. It's also possible the ages of the victims has resulted in different perceptions about the seriousness of the offences which I'm not sure I agree with but could be a factor.

    It's possible things will change for Masterson as time goes on without any other changes (new convictions or successful appeals) since his acting career will start to fade away.

    As for Klete Keller, well I think his crimes are by most definitions significantly less serious than the other two, as shown by his likely sentence which may lead to the view it's less important to add to the lead but also it doesn't matter so much if it is. However he's not helped by the fact he's someone with a significantly lower profile than the other two. I suspect unfortunately he also isn't helped by the fact there's significant outrage over the January 6 United States Capitol attack and continued efforts by politicians and others in the US to push discredited claims of electoral fraud given the (IMO fair) risks this seems to be posing towards US democracy, leading towards very strong pushback against people who are in any way a part of that.

    IMO we see similar things in our tendency to tag people as far-right, climate change deniers, conspiracy theorist and perhaps stuff related to vaccines and COVID-19 misinformation although I think the latter two are helped by the fact there isn't a such a commonly accepted term. (There is vaccine sceptic but it isn't really seen in the same way.) I don't think this is a good thing, unfortunately it's also not something that's easy to counter given widespread community support for it.

    Nil Einne (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this in depth analysis of the above mentioned BLPs. Although I do agree about what is considered "more notable" at the time for each subject; I'm not quite sure that rules out "non-specifics" and what the claim for notable inclusion was for the BLP at the time of article creation. Obviously, Keller was included here at WP for being an Olympic Swimmer. That being said, like Masterson, his swimming career is now over due to his conviction. But that shouldn't place the non-specific "convicted participant" before "Olympic swimmer" now or even over time. If asked who R. Kelly is, the average person on the street would most likely say: "Rapper, record producer, etc". Certainly not "child sex offender". Which precedes the original notable claim for inclusion in the lede and is a "non-specific". (NOTE: At the time of this writing, it has been changed to read correctly. For how long, I can't say) WP:recentism plays a big part in all this, i.e. Bill Cosby; where daily edits and reversions and discussions went on by-the-minute due to ongoing news media reports were released on the trials. In the end, the entire lede had to be reconstructed because Cosby was not convicted; and now the mention of his alleged crimes is not even found within the first paragraph lede where once it was in the first sentence. R. Kelly is after all still considered: "the King of R&B", "the King of Pop-Soul", and the "Pied Piper of R&B" and yet his infobox image has a mugshot. That should be the accompanying image found in 'Section 5 within the article. And a more NPOV image should represent the BLP in the infobox. Maineartists (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    des rocs

    Hi there, this article incorrectly states that Des Rocs is influenced by "Grandson". This is not the case. This is a contemporary who Des Rocs has toured with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLipton88 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @AlexLipton88, I've removed it because none of the cited sources mention Grandson. Schazjmd (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, another important artist Des has toured with is The Cult, that could be mentioned before The Struts. Here's some articles showing that:
    https://www.houseofblues.com/lasvegas/EventDetail?tmeventid=G5vjZ9dJpUAE5&offerid=138779
    https://hardrockchick.com/she-sells-sanctuary-the-cult-des-roc-house-of-blues-las-vegas-mandalay-bay/ AlexLipton88 (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Emmanuel Lemelson

    The biography of Emmanuel Lemelson has seen back-and-forth editing that doesn't yet constitute edit warring, but there is a worrisome degree of content gatekeeping that seems to be taking place.

    This snapshot between a number of edits is a good example of how two editors in good standing (one of whom is a prolific Wikipedia admin) were unilaterally reverted. I request a wider set of eyes to look at the reliably-sourced content that was reverted:

    Sourced content about the biography subject’s reports criticizing a pharmaceutical company (Law360) - is removed.
    Sourced content about how charges against the biography subject were brought (Barron's) - is removed.
    Other content, also sourced to Barron's: "According to company emails and trial testimony, Ligand CEO John Higgins wanted Lemelson 'silenced for good.'" - is removed.
    Admin's removal of COI tag because the article had been "substantially rewritten since December 2021" - is reverted.

    I am struggling to see how the above reversion (and another taking place in November, this time by another editor who has close association with the first editor) doesn't draw question.

    Note, I have been accused by one involved admin of having a conflict of interest, and I'm advised that I should only edit the Talk page of this BLP – both instructions having come without any notification, nor any formal review or investigation. Personally, I don't see the basis, but it doesn’t really bother me -- except for the fact that I think the "involved editor" warning may belong atop the editor who issued it, given that they seemed to come off of a two-week break, just to make another reversion and to announce that I should be restricted to the Talk page. Funny how none of my other edits across Wikipedia are getting this kind of push-back. It's only on one biography where two editors have been persistently reverting for many, many years.

    The result is that the content seems to downplay anything negative about the pharmaceutical company and its Congressional helpers, while simultaneously downplaying anything that looks like a courtroom victory for the BLP subject. But let's keep this simple and just focus on the content/sourcing dispute itself. I ask other editors in the BLP space to address this pair of questions:

    Are the Law360 and Barron’s sources legitimate and reliable in this instance?
    Is the extracted content from these sources appropriate in this BLP, and if not, why not?

    Thank you, sincerely. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll just first mention that the article Emmanuel Lemelson has been subject to promotional editing since at least 2016; compare the list, near the top of its talkpage, of Wikipedia contributors whose editing suggests they may be connected to the subject of the article.
    Where were you accused of having a conflict of interest and told to only edit the article's talkpage, Swiss Mister in NY? I don't see anything like that on your talkpage. Please give a diff. [Added: Never mind, I see it. It's in Smalljim's edit summary here. So you think Smalljim probably has a COI because they "come off a two-week break, just to make another reversion and to announce that I should be restricted to the Talk page"? That may be some of the weakest sauce I've seen on this noticeboard. Smalljim can't take a break and then return? Bishonen | tålk 21:15, 2 December 2023 (UTC).][reply]
    Your "snapshot" of the history between 1 September and 9 September, and the way you describe it, is a little awkward. You don't mention that of the 9 edits elided by the snapshot, 6 were made by you yourself and 3 more minor, gnoming kind of edits were made by BD2412, who is indeed an admin in good standing. So, essentially, the new additions which GreenC mentions in their edit summary and calls whitewashing were all made by you. You were reverted — "unilaterally". I'm not sure how anyone would revert something, or otherwise edit, not unilaterally? Uh, multilaterally..? GreenC's revert has an explanatory edit summary, the new additions white washes the case, makes Lemelson into a victim who won the case, makes it look like the SEC lost the case, and buries what actually happened and why. To me, checking out your additions to the article, that edit summary sounds fair.
    A general request: Please mention people by name, rather than posting rebuses like "another [revert] taking place in November, this time by another editor who has close association with the first editor", with neither of these editors ever named by you, so that your reader has to chase them down. (For the convenience of other readers, the first is GreenC and the second Smalljim.) Do you have a notion that it would be rude to name names (it isn't, it's just more convenient)? or might you be trying to avoid pinging them to the discussion? [On second thoughts, I'm withdrawing this. The user isn't actually very experienced, though they have been here a long time, and probably simply didn't know about pinging. Bishonen | tålk 21:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC).] More importantly, what is the close association of which you speak? That's quite an aspersion. Please provide evidence for it. Bishonen | tålk 21:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    You don't see me being told on my Talk page to edit only the article's Talk page, because I was neither notified of the accusation nor the suggested restriction (see edit summary). As for my leaving editors' names out of it, that was as my attempt to extend a courtesy to them, and to keep the focus on the sources and content -- but if it's more helpful to include their names here, then I thank you for including them. As for your assumption that I "might be trying to avoid pinging them", you may wish to reconsider that. The "close association" between GreenC and Smalljim can be evidenced here, with public quotes from Smalljim that suggest a collaboration together on the article. Again, I didn't want to get into that fracas... could we try to focus on what was wrong with the content extracted from Law360 and Barron's? - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A check of the history of this article shows a long list of well known and experienced editors who have dealt with this COI article over the past 10 years. SmallJim has been dealing with it for 9 years, myself around 7 years, but hardly alone. Even if we disappeared, there would be a different set of editors, probably less patient with the bias, because the same problems would exist. -- GreenC 00:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The notion that Smalljim is probably the one with the COI, offered by SMNY above, is altogether absurd. It's also kind of a classic; I'd almost call it a "tell" for COI editors. Here's one random example from 2020. Bishonen | tålk 10:10, 3 December 2023 (UTC).[reply]
    Exactly. There are all sorts of tells with this account. The kind of articles they edit: about Catholic priests in the Boston area where Lemelson is based; about local New Hampshire topics where Lemelson lives; unsourced content about Catholic priests that only someone inside would probably know about. The material they are trying to add is exactly word for word what previous blocked socks tried to add. The conspiratorial frame of mind, they see a conspiracy against Lemelson, both on and off Wikipedia. The mode of attack, to quote people out context, the same as what previous blocked socks did. The unending obsession with Lemelson's biography article, and the amount of time and energy they spend on it. The refusal to compromise or see other POVs, similar to previous socks, arguing indefinitely. I can't prove who this is, and I don't want to, not trying to out anyone, but this and other lines of public evidence quacks loudly of a problem. WP:NOTBORNYESTERDAY. The victims here are the good faith editors, it has long been disruptive. This user no doubt has sleeper accounts and can continue this way for a long time, if one gets blocked they will have another. -- GreenC 17:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, Bish and GreenC. To complement your comments, I'd like to provide some history. The article originated as part of the Wiki-PR sock farm (it's included in the list of topics on that page). It first appeared in the User:Sublimeharmony sandbox11 on 17 Jun 2013, here. A related version then appeared in the User:Orthodox2014 sandbox on 22 Apr '14, here as a copy-paste with ref numbers in brackets, but no associated references. Orthodox14 worked on this, adding the refs before pasting it as a live article a couple of days later, see here.

    Orthodox2014 (talk · contribs) was eventually confirmed as a sock of MiamiDolphins3 and indef blocked in Apr '17. See here and here. Note the comment by the CheckUser in the second link: "Surprisingly, Cypresscross is technically Unrelated.--Bbb23 20:21, 12 April 2017". Sounds to me as if Bbb23 expected Cc to be related.

    After Orthodox2014, Cypresscross (talk · contribs) edited the article from Jan '17 until a sudden cessation in Oct '18. There was then a two year gap – which, maybe coincidentally, corresponded with the SEC court case – until a series of 17 IPs(*) made edits starting in Sep '20 after, I think, details of the court case started to appear. There were also edits by DownEastLaw (talk · contribs) in this time (Dec '21 to Jul '22). In Feb '23 RomaTomatos (talk · contribs) made 7 edits, and the current complainant, Swiss Mister in NY (talk · contribs), made their first edit to the article in Mar '23.

    Apart from the obvious COI exhibited by all these editors, what is notable is their sequential nature: one stops editing, there's a gap and another starts. There has never been any overlap in their editing and none of them has ever communicated in-Wiki with any other. How unlikely is that? It could be explained as either one person carefully socking, or another organised sock farm with different people taking on the task. However, as GreenC has noted, there are definite similarities in the writing style of all these accounts. It seems to me that there is clearly some intelligence and much persistence behind this ten-year exercise, with an increasing awareness of the need to disguise behaviour – don't edit war, be polite, make edits to other articles, etc.  —Smalljim  21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (*) For completeness, here are the 17 COI IPs that consecutively edited the article from Sep '20 to Jan '23:

    199.188.176.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 50.78.20.21 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.238.165.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 63.96.130.72 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.242.133.223 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 208.59.112.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.251.110.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 5.171.15.144 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 70.16.214.226 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B128:823A:3180:DDF1:7589:CCF7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.242.131.36 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B109:84ED:5D38:DE93:DD19:DBF6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.192.13.8 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.192.10.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2400:ADC3:126:C900:60F3:C491:33D8:3C87 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B160:9817:6D5B:ED52:6F94:6C3A (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 12.190.236.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).

    GreenC has already noted that some of these IPs originate from the same provider, and I see that the 2600:1000: IPV6 addresses were blocked last month as Template:checkuserblock-wide  —Smalljim  21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    My my, there have been walls of text theories about me and how I've been "involved" (since 2010, somehow -- what a long-range plan), but not a single answer to the two simple questions:

    Are the Law360 and Barron’s sources legitimate and reliable in this instance?
    Is the extracted content from these sources appropriate in this BLP, and if not, why not?

    I'm happy to wait on the answers. Or, I could put them on the Talk page of the biography, if you prefer to ignore them there. Until then, I'll be editing Wikipedia while hoping not to sound "too similar" to other ghosts you've been battling for 8 or 10 years. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Swiss Mister in NY: How about rather than waiting for anything you stop caring about this article. It has enough eyes on it from here from editors who definitely do not have a COI and are experienced. So it would be better for everyone if you keep things clean by leaving it be. Just go about editing other articles, let it be no concern of yours any more. Perhaps 10 years from now when you have a lot more edits and experience you can come back to it if you're really interested. Since you don't have a COI, this should not be a problem for you to do. Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Another comment from someone who cannot answer the two questions presented, choosing instead to argue from a position of anecdotal fallacy. This is interesting how nobody seems able to say whether Law360 and Barron's are legitimate sources for a biography, or whether content summarized from them is somehow inappropriate for the given biography. - Swiss Mister in NY (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough, before I saw this comment (I was thinking the account might disappear again) I had begun to investigate Swiss Mister in NY in more depth as I was wondering about that older history. I agree with the CoI concerns except I'm unconvinced this has anything to do with a personal COI as I think User:GreenC is suggesting above. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Swiss Mister in NY for more. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have made an effort to edit this page in the past, but my contributions were unfortunately reversed. Despite this, I remain interested in contributing to the discussion and improving the article's quality. I believe that the changes I suggested were unbiased, balanced, and well-referenced and would have added value to the article. However, I eventually gave up because there was no rational explanation behind the reversals.--DownEastLaw (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Page Statistics show you are responsible for 4.8% of article content in only 2 years and 12 edits! Congrats. By comparison, I've been here 7 years and can only claim 9.2%, and that took 102 edits. Of course, some material may have been reversed and changed, but that's normal Wikipedia. Smalljim has reversed a lot of material I added, for example.
    As for your account, I don't understand your very first edit: [37]. This is not typical of a newbie, and, it is in support of an IP who was making biased edits. Were you that IP? Also, what made you choose to add material about Lemelson in a different article. -- GreenC 01:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Puripol Boonson

    Hello,

    I would like to report incorrect information in the Puripol Boonson article. The user [2001:fb1:fb:357e:b5c2:75ce:f95a:6cb3] has repeatedly added incorrect data regarding the size of Puripol Boonson.

    The article in question: Puripol Boonson

    Reasons for reporting:

    - The information added does not conform to reality. - This constitutes a violation of the policies regarding biographies of living persons. - Despite my attempts to resolve the issue by discussing with the contributor, he would not listen. - It should be noted that the contributor provides no source for the added information.

    I would like to point out that although the source site is no longer available, the Thai page uses the same source for Puripol Boonson's size. Note that I have not made this change on the Thai page.

    I'm also attaching a link to a diff showing the contentious changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Puripol_Boonson&diff=1187637047&oldid=1186388629 .

    Please take the necessary steps to correct this error.

    Yours faithfully

    [CelestialSaphir] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelestialSaphir (talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi @CelestialSaphir. I've requested protection for the article, which should stop the disruption. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 18:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nidadavolu Malathi

    Malathi Nidadavolu (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)On the page titled, "Nidadavolu Malathi" , under the category spouse, Velcheru Narayana Rao's name has been added, I do not know by whom. I divorced Narayana Rao in 1987, and there is no spoual relationship since. Noting his name as my spouse is misleading and inaccurate. Therefore, I tried to delete his name, but my deletion was by reverted, quoting conflict of interest. I am not sure how COI could occur when the spousal relationship does not exist. I appreciate your help in correcting/updating the information. Thanks, Nidadavolu Malathi[reply]

    I have removed the listing of a spouse from Nidadavolu Malathi as it had no sources to verify it.
    In Wikipedia's eyes, a WP:COI occurs any time you edit an article about yourself, and in this case the COI was noted when undoing a group of edits including adding terms like "reputable" and "well-known". Much of the work of Wikipedia editors involve undoing attempts of subjects to enhance their page -- say, a manufacturer wanting us to say that they make "high-quality" products. So we are particularly cautious on subjects adding point-of-view terms like those. COI doesn't mean inaccurate, it just means that there are reason to suspect that the editor may have motivations beyond just the good of the encyclopedia. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    User:103.115.24.51

    IP user making questionable, unsourced edits w/o edit summaries. At least one case of OR, although I didn't check all edits as politics in Bangladesh is not my bailiwick. 65.88.88.56 (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Andrey Nechayev

    Further information: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § NewsRuss.com

    The latest information in the article about me regarding the companies that I allegedly lobby is an unproven lie and fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.182.3 (talk • contribs) 2023-12-05T20:18:11 (UTC)

    Max Swarner

    This abomination of an article should have been deleted ages ago. Obviously I can't do it. Created by a user whose sole contributions were to create the Max Swarner article and updated since then by at least one dedicated IP user ([38], [39]). How did it live this long? 65.88.88.56 (talk) 23:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, this individual doesn't seem notable enough to warrant an article. The performances and awards cited in the article are local to the Dallas / Fort Worth area. My WP:BEFORE searches found more local material, the usual social media and a range of run-of-the-mill publicity stuff for productions he's appeared in - just the kind of thing you'd expect for a working performer. However there's no in-depth discussion of him in prestigious publications that aren't local to the Dallas area, which would be needed to show he passes WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. Unless anyone can come up with anything showing notability, I'll send it to WP:AFD later. Neiltonks (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nominated for deletion. Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nick McKenzie

    Nick McKenzie was involved with a defamation case involving Peter Schiff. The case was settled, Schiff was to receive some money for which McKenzie was not personally liable. Despite this, a swarm of pro-Schiff editors have descended on the page and tried to smear McKenzie however they can. The page is now protected but it's still going on. I don't have the time or energy to deal with this myself so am calling for reinforcements. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 04:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ryan Shore

    Some help would be very welcome at Ryan Shore, where the SPA article creator has been repeatedly reverting my removal of unsourced claims of awards. I'm going to pause reverts for now, to avoid WP:3RR. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Wikishovel. I have indefinitely pageblocked the promotional editor from Ryan Shore, although they can make edit requests on the article talk page. Please let me know if you see any further disruption there. Cullen328 (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, will keep an eye on it and try to improve the referencing. Wikishovel (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rebekah D. Fenton

    This person is non-significant, and does not merit a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.127.246 (talk) 20:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    There seems to be some OR analysis of her work in the article but does seem to be coverage of her in RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Pearson

    Michael Pearson has recently passed away. Please see his obituary published in the International Journal of Maritime History https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08438714231208828 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:101:AA60:3142:5D41:635B:8C09 (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Article edited to reflect this, thanks for letting us know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1189062331"