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.

Peter_McGuffin

Hi there, I would like to report the passing of Peter McGuffin. I understand that he passed away on the 30th of January 2024. I heard of his passing from a mutual friend who is also a member of the South Wales Guitar society. I find the editing of the page a bit baroque - so if somebody could update it for me, that would be great. Many thanks, Andrew Sherlock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.48.70 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, we cannot add that someone has passed until it has been reported in a reliable source, such as a newspaper obituary, or the website of one of the places at which he worked. I understand that that may seem much, but Wikipedia is the target of many hoax death claims and occasional honest errors, and we must maintain our standard. If you see such a source online, feel free to bring it back here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler Tweet [1] by International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, it may be acceptable. Article at Peter McGuffin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added the death (although with a slightly vague date due to the source.) The article could use some basic editing -- there are twenty references that are handed-numbered and then just listed at the bottom, rather than being prperly ref-tag formatted, first off. There are signs that large chunks were copied from off-site (notably that several paragraphs were in their twice, and the use of non-Wikipedian section headings, although I have now excised the duplicate and done proper header formatting.) If someone has a bit more energy tha under-the-weather Nat to tackle these things today, there's an easy target for your efforts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several different sets of edits over the years brought in that hard-coded mess, such as User:Peter.Mcguffin (whose edits are obviously copied from somewhere since they refer to numbered refs that did not exist in that timeframe) which were then corrected by User:90.243.162.30 (demonstrating connection among those two) and User:90.253.146.252. Someone with a mind to clean up could use those as places to focus. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the references and moved a duplicated section. A lot of copy editing is still required, and there is potential copyright violation of whatever the original text was copy-pasted from. Nangaf (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Hunt

After many years of relative stability, @LokiTheLiar has been pushing to expand the section on the 2015 online shaming incident in Tim Hunt's Wikipedia article. He has gotten what he (and others) interprets as a consensus for this at WP:NPOVN [2] over my strong objections. I need input on his proposal (which I believe will ultimately violate WP:DUE in its length before it can be made accurate enough to comply with WP:BLP). I'm happy to say more about that. But I also need immediate help on a procedural question: Should these changes be implemented while we're still discussing them? Loki seems to think it is important to introduce the disputed material now; I think BLP warrants caution, and we should work on the talk page until the issue is settled. If someone with experience on BLP could weigh in, I would appreciate it.Thomas B (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is classic WP:FORUMSHOPPING and you really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Just because you "strongly object" doesn't mean that your opinions override those of everybody else. At the NPOVN and talkpage discussions, nobody else agreed with your version which effectively frames Tim Hunt's comments and the surrounding controversy entirely through the lens of "online shaming". I really think it's a waste of time to have yet another noticeboard discussion, so I would advise people to instead comment at Talk:Tim Hunt#Proposed new version of the controversy section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Consensus has been reached in two different places, and a quite clear consensus to boot. Like I said on the talk page, it's not like anyone else here is unaware of WP:BLP.

(Also: Thomas Basboll, if you want to actually ping someone you can do {{u|Thomas Basboll}} to produce the effect earlier in the sentence, including the same automatic Wiki notification. Just putting an @ sign in front of a name only does something in the special inline Reply dialogue.) Loki (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A RFC has now been opened to resolve the issue: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge someone with admin responsibility to look at this RFC on Talk:Tim Hunt. There is a significant BLP issue emerging there concerning the 2015 Twitter controversy. Without going into the details, crucial facts that the initial social media claims were untrue is not being included and undue prominence is being given to the initial claims made on social media. W C M_email 08:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been to NPOVN, ANI, BLPN and there's a block being considered for one editor AND a RfC is running. I'm quite sure many admins are well aware of what's happening, and - yes - some of them have made comments. Most of the editors in the discussion are very experienced and well used to dealing with BLPs. Bon courage (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Drayna

Page was created by subject's son, possible conflict of interest. Does page need to exist? Does not seem to be a public figure. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.164.5 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence of COI, and subject appears to be reasonably notable - it isn't necessary for the subject of a blp to be a public figure. Is there anything specific in the article that strikes you as peacock wording, undue weight, libel/slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable in a blp? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Drayna&oldid=846287102 for evidence of COI. (Note I am not the IP). Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you mean "Added biographic article on American human geneticist Dennis Drayna and contributions to science of stuttering. NOTE: Dennis Drayna in my father". Yes, I misspoke; there is a conflict of interest, but that does not inherently or explicitly mean that the edits are problematic. The person who added the information identified themselves, and their contributions to the article are - by my eye - uncontroversial, no loaded/peacock wording, or any other red-flags. If the content were larded with 'stellar accomplishements', 'top of his field', 'extraordinary contributions to' xyz, that would be problematic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard B. Spencer

Richard B. Spencer rose to prominence in the mid 2010s as a far right activist, and our article on him currently states in wikivoice that he is such. However, in 2022, Spencer stated that he has completely reevaluated his beliefs and now identities as a political moderate. [3] Looking at recent podcasts and the like that he has participated in, his change in beliefs appears to be genuine. While obviously we need to heavily cover Spencer's historical far right activism and beliefs, which are the source of his notability, I no longer think it's fair to say them in wikivoice in the lead as if they are current. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'll admit I am uneasy making that change at the moment because it is essentially based on self-serving proclamations from the subject himself. Though covered by a couple of secondary sources, for my money I would want a bit more. But, as ever, I am happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying something like "Spencer rose to prominence as..." would be a good framing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just coming around to a solution like that myself. No problem with that sort of revision. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Made the change [4]. I think the issue is resolved, at least for the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any sources saying "Spencer rose to prominence as..." I do see dozens of reliable sources saying "Spencer is a white supremacist" or "...white supremacist Richard Spencer", etc. We should be using the wording that multiple sources are using. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are over half a decade old, and are not current. Spencer has distanced himself from his past views, and whether you find Spencer's mea cupla convincing or not (and its totally understandable not to), per WP:PUBLICFIGURE we are obligated to include them. Spencer has obviously said some extremely odious things that he's never going to live down, and that should be at the front and centre of his biography. None of my edits really attempted to downplay that. Also, is Spencer at this point still a major public advocate for the Alt Right? I think the Buisness Insider piece makes clear that the answer is no. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"All of these sources are over half a decade old" - not accurate. I 100% believe you're operating in good faith, but I already added a source from October 2023 (Times of Israel) that ID's him as a white supremacist. There's a NYT article from October that does the same, I can add it if you like. I've addressed the alt-right thing - it's not so much that he disavowed the alt-right, it's that the alt-right has largely abandoned that label, which is something the Tablet source points out explicitly - the neo-nazis and white supremacists are rebranding themselves as "centrists", and Tait says that in his piece. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But aren't these sources discussing Spencer in his historical mid-late 2010s context as a prominent alt right leader? As far as I can tell, Spencer is no longer really a public figure in the same way that he was back in 2017, and the lack of recent sources reflect that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. To interpret those articles that way would be original research. David Duke hasn't made any news since 2016, but no one is suggesting that "okay, maybe he was a white supremacist in 2016, but now he's probably not." More importantly, where is a reliable secondary source that states "Spencer is no longer a white supremacist"? It doesn't exist. You know why? Because Spencer is a white supremacist. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that sources go as far as the edit made to our article. The Tablet Mag source doesn't really describe him that way, and the source linked in this thread is highly questionable for contentious BLP claims per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and WP:JEZEBEL. The Jezebel source also mentions that his claims might be self-serving due to financial implications from the Charlottesville lawsuit. I'd hope to see some additional sources and stronger ones, if such coverage exists. In the meantime, since it is a BLP (and white supremacist/white nationalist are some of the most contentious labels we use in articles) erring on the side of caution with our wikivoice descriptions is probably the right call until a more firm consensus/sourcing is given. One part of the edit I'm not so sure on is "By the early 2020s". It is accurate, but given that we're barely sliding into the mid 2020s at this point some more precise language might be needed. If the current year was 2030 or later, I wouldn't question it. Given that June 2022 is closer to the present day than the start of the 2020s, it might be better to describe it as "By 2022". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its obvious that regardless of what his actual beliefs are his prominent advocacy for the far right is now in the past and not part of his current activities, which the lead should make clear. Part of the problem is that some people are only covered by the news media for a few years before they fall into relative obscurity (as Spencer largely has), while Wikipedia is obligated to have a current up to date article even if there are few recent sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to "hmmm" yet again. I think I am mostly with The Wordsmith here. While I think the agnosticism of "rose to prominence" is appropriate, the "by 2022" line at the end of the lead strikes me as overly emphasized. It is properly couched as "said," but somehow in that placement and with that description, it reads almost like a Wikivoice imprimatur of the statements to me. It is 100% possible this is completely a quirk unique to me, but given the sourcing and self-serving concerns, I would be much happier if it was in the body of the article. Here, in the lead, it seems almost an intentional strong contrast to everything before--which, to me, starts becoming an issue of WP:DUE. But, as ever, reasonable minds may differ on the issue, and this is all just one old guy's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes that Hemiauchenia has made in response to this conversation, but I share Dumuzid's concern that coverage of Spencer's ostensible political conversion is still too thin to be WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead. Better to build out a section on this in the article body first and then reevaluate. Generalrelative (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely an improvement, Hemiauchenia. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I;ve changed again to In 2022, Spencer made statements distancing himself from his previous support of white nationalism and the alt right. Hopefully that's enough to address the concerns about the previous sentence being too favourable to Spencer. Would it be more appropriate to add the the "views" section? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Generalrelative that the new wording is better. I would personally rather see it in views and not yet in the lead, but we're definitely in the realm of preference at this point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a second. Since when do we take the word of a well-documented white supremacist when he says "I'm not a white supremacist"?? That's a primary source and it pales in comparison to the multitude of reliable secondary sources already in the article. Why would Wikipedia help Spencer in his attempt to sanitize his own image, when the core principle of Wikipedia is to use reliable secondary sources? I can't believe this premise has gained any traction at all. I am absolutely against the change, and in perusing the article history, it appears the previous wording was very stable for a very long time, outside of a few random white supremacist accounts coming by and protesting it. Fred Zepelin (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leopards don't change their spots. Like Kanye apologizing to the Jews in December, then dropping an album with antisemitic lyrics in January. Let's not be too quick to whitewash Spencer here. Zaathras (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even during the height of his relevance as an alt-right figure, sources noted that Spencer had a tendency to spout popular and moderate or even leftist talking points interspersed with far-right bigotry. For obvious reasons, reliable sources often used this to explain the "hide your power levels" memes or similar (see the ghost skin article). Since Spencer was and still is completely unqualified to talk about any of these political topics, it never actually mattered. Spencer's activity on Substack, as of this week, looks like self-indulgent reviews of 80s pop music... interspersed with nonsense about the "Jewish Question" and other convoluted forms of antisemitism. Again, nothing has changed, and without much better WP:IS, meeting him halfway with his sloppy PR attempts is a mistake. Grayfell (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My views on this topic have moderated since my original BLPN post. I am fine with the article as is following FZ's edits, which I think are a reasonable compromise that isn't self serving to Spencer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold E. Puthoff

Harold E. Puthoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a concerted effort to turn the Harold E. Puthoff article into an attack article, promoting attacks and removing anything neutral or positive. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hal Puthoff is known as a credulous supporter of pseudoscience. It is hardly an "attack" to document this with reliable sources. jps (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero-point energy is not pseudoscience though. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing reliable sources before the section on ZPE can be developed is intentional here. The papers have nothing to do with "extracting energy from". The ZPE stuff is backed (and cited) by several reputable sources. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Puthoff's arguments that the vacuum energy can be extracted to do work are pretty much perpetual motion. A more classic form of pseudoscience there isn't. The ZPE arguments Puthoff made wrt stochastic electrodynamics are also pseudoscientific as they are written in service to such claims. jps (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Gutmann, emeritus professor of inorganic chemistry at the Technical University of Vienna, was a well respected scientist. These publications have nothing to do with extracting energy or perpetual motion machines. That is misdirection. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, are you referring to this pseudophysics blatherskite? [5]. That's just junk science par excellence. Do better. jps (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need evidence to support your claim apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

The sources are noted below. It's not hard to find many and varied independent sources identifying Puthoff's main claims about zero point energy as being motivated reasoning. He seems to think that there are a lot of "unexplained phenomena" that are tied up nice-and-neatly with the zero point energy. This includes everything from remote viewing to anti-gravity devices. jps (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Gutmann (Q2524269) this one. With all the awards and medals. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that appeal to authority is pretty weak, especially given what we know about Nobel disease. Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does. It doesn't get baptized into real science just because the person advocating for it has stature. jps (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additinoally, WP:PRIMARY sources written by Puthoff do not deserve exposition in Wikipedia unless they were noticed by others. We require independent notice prior to explaining claims in a published paper. jps (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Gutmann wrote about it. Again, this is targeted to prevent development of the section, before such sources can be added. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty pathetic argument, bordering on WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently this article being targeted to make it an attack article are all over Twitter. A significant target. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't tell me you're taking marching orders from Twitter [6]. jps (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum vacuum fluctuations are a well-known, if not fully understood, effect in fundamental physics. Puthoff's 1987 paper about them was published in Physical Review, the world's most prestigious physics journal and his work has been cited by hundreds of scientists. As anybody who has worked with dispersion forces knows, one can extract energy from the vacuum on a temporary basis, but to repeat the process you have to put it back in again, so you end up with nothing. Nature never gives us a free lunch. I too deplore the attempt to turn the Putoff BIO into an WP:attack page. The matter could be taken to the WP:Physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Have you looked at the uses Puthoff has posited for this? His stated motivation for the paper is to extract energy without returning it. jps (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who says "the paper" is ill-informed. Puthoff has authored five Physical Review papers, primary author of one in D and two in A and co-author of one in E amd one in A. This was brought up on the article talk page in 2017. The argument from (purportedly) the article subject against including Pigliucci's view that this is pseudoscience echoes Xxanthippe above: the subject has been published in Physical Review and so isn't a pseudoscientist.

Alas, that too is ill-informed. I recommend that editors now read Martin Gardner on this, who devoted the entire chapter 6 of ISBN 9780393245035 to this, pointing out that the papers in Physical Review were in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that Puthoff devoted a subsequent decade to researching machines for extracting zero-point energy "all of them failures", and reports that astronomer Steven N. Shore actually addressed this talk page point before Wikipedia existed, pointing out that Puthoff was regularly rejected by The Astrophysical Journal.

This is not the only time that Shore has covered Puthoff, moreover. Back when xe was at Case Western Reserve xe wrote about Targ and Puthoff:

Shore, Steven N. (Autumn 1984). "Quantum Theory and the Paranormal: The Misuse of Science". The Skeptical Inquirer. 9 (1): 24–35.

In addition to Gardner and Shore, there's also Yam writing at the end of the 1990s about Puthoff's idea of the "zero-point-energy age":

That conceit is not shared by the majority of physicists; some even regard such optimism as pseudoscience that could leech fund from legitimate research. The conventional view is that the energy in the vacuum is minuscule.
— Yam, Philip (December 1997). "Exploiting Zero-Point Energy". Scientific American. Vol. 277, no. 6. pp. 82–85. JSTOR 24996046., p.82

The reality seems to be, Int21h, that Puthoff's claims not to be a pseudoscientist have been met with quite resounding assertions from others that xe is at best a "maverick" and "eccentric" (Gardner's words) or one of the "psientists" (Shore's word) ond is a pseudoscientist even in this, and that the zero-point energy research is "comparable to having research on how the brain works directed by a neuroscientist who believes in phrenology" (Gardner again), from at least 1984 to the early 2000s.

Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of this should be discussed in the article, not just "debunked" and removed. This is published material. To just remove his works and only include attacks is obvious BLPVIO and the admin corps is on notice. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but unless you plan on taking this to ANI or someplace like that, then the "admin corps" is not on notice. Most of us watching this page are not admins, but we just have a keen interest in BLP policy. What we have here appears to be along the lines of a content dispute, which does involve BLP policy, in as much as BLP applies to NPOV. BLP says we must adhere to NPOV, but leaves the rest to NPOV policy, and that's what this discussion is really about.

That said, it would seem to me that just because someone spends time trying to make some experiment work does not in and of itself mean he's engaging in pseudoscience. By that rationale, then everyone at NASA would be pseudoscientists for searching for life on other planets. There's a difference between pseudoscience and legitimate research into the unknown, and let's face it, what we do know is microscopic compared to what we don't. Even the known-unknowns are small by comparison. Alfred Wegener, for example, was the laughing stock of the scientific community when he proposed the idea of continental drift, although now it's accepted as fact. Now, I'm not very familiar with this subject or his work, but it seems to me that what you all have to work out is a matter of weight and balance, and admins rarely get involved in those unless someone starts behaving badly. Zaereth (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, thank you. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No offense intended. It's just, half the battle is just picking the right field. Likewise, half of formulating a good argument is picking the right premise, so if you look at this as an an NPOV issue rather than simply just a BLP one, I think you would have much firmer ground to stand on. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than rely on the opinions of Wikipedia editors, it is better to look at the reactions of Puthoff's peers. In his GS listing of citations [7] Puthoff has garnered the following cites {358,355,356,202,333,133,211,154,123,76,73,32,46,41,14,25,19,19,18,16,12,700,9,9,5,6,37,6,4,2,48,2,46,3,45,48,28,..}. Ten papers with over 100 cites is a number that many physicists would be happy with. I see three types of publication: the first is mainstream work that has received mainstream approval, the second is more speculative physics, like his work on vacuum fluctuations that has prompted interest but no consensus of approval (theorists propose unsuccessful theories all the time, but that does not mean they are fringe) the third is the way-out fringe work like that on ESP. It looks as if the higher cited papers are to his mainstream work, the lower cited ones to his less conventional work. Unlike some people who have worked in unconventional areas, Puthoff has a strong mainstream background. From my experience of taking part in some thousand AfDs of researchers and scholars (I was right 91% of the time in my last AfDs) I would say that if the Puthoff BIO ever came to AfD it would be kept on the basis of his achievements as a mainstream physicist. If it were judged on his work in fringe areas (and nothing else) I think it would be less likely to be kept. Therefore, there has to be a balance made in his BIO in describing his mainstream and non-mainstream work. Xxanthippe (talk).

It looks as if the higher cited papers are to his mainstream work, the lower cited ones to his less conventional work. I don't think this is true. The paper with largest number of citation is 365: Mind Reach: Scientists look at psychic abilities. Another paper with 333 citation is on remote viewing: A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research. A paper with 123 citations is CIA-initiated remote viewing at Stanford Research Institute. That's three of his ten works with over 100 citations. jps (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Cey-Bert

At one of the village pumps I found this: "Róbert Cey-Bert is a fraudster[edit] Latest comment: 13 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion Róbert Cey-Bert's work and activities are not verified by any independent source or scientific forum, the events of his life are mostly based on his narrative, for which there is no direct evidence. Hungarian Wikipedia has therefore already deleted his article. More here in hungarian: Szélhámos az 1956-os érdemeiért tisztikereszttel kitüntetett Cey-Bert Róbert Az ember, aki mindenütt ott volt: a Magyarságkutató Intézet főtanácsadójának esete a tényellenőrzéssel I recommend changing or deleting the article due to the above information. Vander (talk) 9:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)Reply"

On hu.wiki Robert Cey-Bert[edit]( article • edit article • discussion • edit discussion • list • edit worksheet • story • links • log • dellog • monitor • delete • rename • infringer • protect • close • WP:AK ) This is a discussion of a deletion proposal . The goal is not necessarily to delete the page, but – if possible – to correct the errors. Please, if you comment, avoid faulty reasoning and keep in mind the relevant rules of Wikipedia ( namely , what does not belong in Wikipedia? ). After much deliberation, I am writing this deletion discussion. I debated because the subject of the article obviously fulfills the requirements of notoriety, certainly in the tabloid sense of the word, but we don't have an article about all the tabloid characters, who are in principle notable anyway... My problem with this article is that it is practically impossible to write it in such a way that it contains the pure truth. It is based on Róbert Cey-Bert's own statements, 90% of which turned out to be of dubious credibility and unverifiable, even in the most subtle use of words. If we take out the sections that cannot be verified by an independent source, nothing is left (at most, a bunch of references asking for sources, if we don't delete them from the article, but that's not even better). There is a thorough, very rich, verifiably sourced article about Cey-Bert's frauds [1] , but if we build the article entirely on this article and the sources in it, we will have an unpleasant, sad article about an eavesdropping uncle, which is not good either, if, in my opinion, the article structured in this way would be closest to the actual truth. Of course, it can also be neutral, include both sides, this would probably be the ugliest solution: Cey-Bert's statements at the top, why the statement is not true at the bottom - this is unworthy of a lexicon. My opinion is to push the issue and let the article go. The wiki will not be less if there is no article about a bigoted uncle. Viröngy discussion 17 August 2022, 01:41 (CEST) [ reply ]

Tobe an article candidate , then if it is important to someone, you can improve it. Even sources that seem independent at first glance are not. For example, merve.hu listed in note 4 lists Zita Tóth as the author, but switches to first person singular at the beginning of the biography ("my father was a mill owner", "my family's ancestors"). CBR talks about itself in number 5, and also in number 6. The role he played in 1956 is also interestingly sourced: according to the text of the article, "he joined the Corvin insurgents led by Gergely Pongrátz", according to the note accompanying the claim, "Gergely Pongrátz believed Cey-Bert that he fought with him during the Corvin..." and "Cey-Bert was able to convince Gergelly Pongrátz and Mária Wittner that he fought during Corvin in 1956." This should not remain among the articles, we will only discredit the encyclopedia with it. – Hkoala August 17, 2022 at 09:18 (CEST) [ reply ]

I support Hkoala's suggestion. -  Pagony message 17 August 2022, 10:58 (CEST) Don't be angry, it's getting worse. We pack "sources" here and there, passages of text, but we always conclude that the source is itself. to be deleted -  Pagony message 17 August 2022, 21:47 (CEST) [ reply ]  
I support it , making it a candidate article is also a perfect solution, the main thing is that it doesn't look indecent in the article namespace. Viröngy discussion 17 August 2022, 11:27 (CEST) [ reply ]
to be deleted As a biographical article, I think it is unsalvageable and irreparable. You can add a refutation next to almost all of your claims, and if you delete them, essentially nothing is left. The article might be interesting as a phenomenon (insolence, pseudo-scientific activity, plus how the unsuspecting part of the media makes a star out of such bigots), but that's not what it's about. (I would only add that if there really were as many people during the Corvin at that time as there are today who are trying to take advantage of it, then the 56 insurgents would still be holding their own.) Today I took the trouble and read through the recently published writings, including the writing published on researchgate. So, based on these, this entry should not survive in any form on the Hungarian Wikipedia. –  VargaThe discussion August 17, 2022 at 8:37 PM (CEST)

Both were created by User:Fatongu. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as bad as it at first appears. For starters, the 2022 source that debunks a lot of the four decades of autobiography printed in the Hungarian press uncritically is already used in the article. By Fatongu. Added in Special:Diff/1167304303 back in 2023. There's a lot to check there against the debunking, though, that was there before the debunking came out and is still in the article now. A quick look doesn't indicate an easy place to start, and to unpick the stuff sourced to uncritical press. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G It looks pretty tricky. We need someone who can read Hungarian for a start. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know here is a DeepL Translator, I think this could also be used. Vander (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly to some extent. I've used google translate, and it can help sort of give me the gist of what is being said. It tends to work much better the closer a language is to English. For example, they translate French, Norwegian, and Swedish rather well, because those are what English is primarily made of, (although I find I can translate those much better myself just from the etymology). German and other Eastern European languages become much harder to translate meaningfully, and when you get into Asian languages they can become downright incoherent. The problem is they translate things very literally, and most languages are far more figurative than literal. Idioms and figures of speech, and even syntax, can come off wrong or even very confusing through machine translation. Semantic translation works much better, by translating the meaning rather than word for word, but machines just can't pull that off, so it's always best to have someone who actually speaks the language assess sources. There are some telltale signs of a good/bad source that are universal across languages, such as, are they using expository style? Do they avoid pushing their opinions? Etc... Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like people at the Hungarian AfD [8] also have concerns about this article. I've read the document in google translated form and it appears to be credible, but as a WP:BLPSPS it is alas unusable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do read a little Hungarian (perhaps on a 2nd grade level; I can at least usually check the machine translation), and have some knowledge and/or opinions about reliability of Hungarian news media. I notice that Cey-Bert has been significantly covered by Magyar Nemzet, mainly as an author [9][10][11][12]. Magyar Nemzet at one time was perhaps the Hungarian equivalent of the Wall Street Journal; nowadays it is overly associated with the Orban government, and one should take it with more than a grain of salt. It is very plausible, for example, that the government would like to push the narrative of a 1956 freedom fighter, facts be d*mned. I don't have much Wikipedia time this week, but will try to check in from time to time, and am happy to try to comment on sources. I agree that the article should be trimmed with a chainsaw. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'll be your contact person for the Hungarian Wikipedia regarding the Róbert Cey-Bert page. Please be patient, I'll check the Hungarian page history and get back to you shortly. Szefato (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unflattering subject matter not fully confirmed

I am working on User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Gary Bossert, which may even be in article space by the time you respond. I am in user sandbox space because his notability seemed questionable to me as I approached the subject. I feel confident that he would survive a challenge now. I intend to move him to main space in the near future. I am here because I have discovered content that I can not confirm is him (see User_talk:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Gary_Bossert#Possibly_a_basketball_coach). Bossert is a basketball player whose college career ended in 1987. He played high school and college basketball in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls Metropolitan Area. I have found content that shows a 1989-91 high school basketball coach tenure in the Watertown, New York area by a Gary Bossert. I don't see anything describing the coach as this basketball player that I know. However, it would be common for a college basketball player to try to be a professional basketball player and if he is not satisfied with his trajectory in this regard to go into coaching starting as a high school coach, college assistant, or college athletic admin staffer. So the chronolgy meshes well. The coach Bossert seems to have ended his career in an unbecoming manner getting called for 2 technical fouls and forfeiting an end-of-season playoff game. There is no subsequent mention of him as a coach. Should I assume he is the coach.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before even getting to the question of whether it is the same person, is the information really WP:DUE? You say you found 'content,' but is that in a reliable source and one important enough that it means people took notice? It's certainly possible that it is due for inclusion, but as you describe it here, I confess I am a bit skeptical. That said, I am sure you have a better idea than I do! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the Watertown Daily Times is a RS because it is a major newspaper of a non-trivial municipality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't the only athlete by that name of that era; I find, for example, reports of a track-and-field competitor by that name in Pennsylvania. I'm not saying that the coach is not the same guy as the NCAA record holder; I am saying that the matching name is not sufficient information for inclusion, given that the names involved aren't that rare. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I totally leave out any mention of a Watertown area 1989-91 coach Gary Bossert?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, barring some other source arising providing a more concrete connection. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein for guidance. —Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I sent Buffalo & Erie County Public Library a long list of questions about things like 1. Who his father is 2. Whether he was the point guard on the 1982 17&U Empire State Games West New York team with Curtis Aiken that upset New York City 3. How many siblings he had 4. Where he might have transferred from 5. Post collegiate career info.

among the things they sent back were this link, which provides confirmation-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should do it! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronn Owens

I am one one Ronn Owens's daughters. I have been the target of a smear campaign in which internet trolls have repeatedly gone onto my father's Wikipedia page and tried to my name and existence from his page, and only list my sister as his daughter. This article confirms the fact that Ronn Owens has two daughters, Sarah and Laura. I would appreciate it if you would please lock his page so that cyber trolls are not allowed to change it from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.144.204 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is now a source showing Owens has two daughters, that matter is resolved. As far as the names of the daughters, names of children are normally omitted unless they are themselves notable people. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trivium (band) – a former member may have transitioned gender

Trivium (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Trivium band members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Autumn Offering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Galamity33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here is the status quo ante: The Trivium (band) article lists "George Moore" among the former members of the band.

On 8 February, Galamity33 created an account. They have held themselves out as the former band member. Their only edits have been to change the name of said band member to "galamity" in the articles related to the band and the communicate with various users about the issues at their respective user talk pages (and their own talk page).

The user has been repeatedly requested to provide independent reliable sources. The only sources they have provided are:

A YouTube video on their channel (which has only one follower) showing their legal documents. This creates the usual WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns about using legal documents for a source.
An entry on themselves at metal-archives.com, which accepts submissions from users.

I conducted a Google search for "galamity" and got no hits on the name.

There are two issues I see here.

Should we be changing the individual's name in the absence of independent sources covering the name change by the former band member?
Even if we can verify the change of name, how much mention of their former name must remain in the Trivium articles, given that they were known by their own name during the time they were notable?

The user has repeatedly edited the articles listed above, and I have indefinitely partially blocked them from the two named articles on the grounds of edit warring (with COI and BLP(!) as supporting reasons for the block). I look for wider input on how to address the situation, since if this isn't the first time we will have a situation like this arise, I doubt it will be the last. —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The person on youtube appears to be the same as the tiktok user _galamity and, judging by the bio (though I cannot see anything further as I don't use twitter) @_galamity on twitter. Not sure how much that helps confirm/deny their identity as the former Trivium member; someone who has twitter and tiktok accounts may be able to find out more. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there even a reliable source for the existing name? I couldn’t see a reference. Perhaps it would be best to remove it, or even remove all the unsourced former band members, changing that section to list only “notable former band members”, which as it stands would just be the members with their own articles (assuming those articles in turn are deemed notable). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At face value, the documents shared via Youtube look convincing but unusable for our own purposes. I went out and did a check to try to find something we can use, but I'm coming up empty. Moore has credits from 1999-2006, but nothing at all after that point. Galamity has a verified Spotify artist page, with no bio and only one song, published in 2021. Soundcloud has nothing before 2022. The Twitter/X account was created in 2021. There's essentially no record of Moore after 2006 and no record of Galamity before 2021. I can't find any biographical information on Moore either to try and establish a link. Obviously we need to be sensitive to a request like this, and the documents seem to prove (again, unsuitable for BLP purposes) that Galamity was previously named George Moore. I'm having trouble finding anything even halfway legitimate that can link Galamity to being the same George Moore that used to be in Trivium, as opposed to a different person named George Moore. I'm not sure what the right thing to do in this situation is, to rule out the possibility of an impersonator. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of verifying information in reliable third-party sources, nothing should be changed. Giant Snowman 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NB they also appear to have edited as Galamity3 (talk · contribs), and there's possible meat/sock puppets at TheyThemcausingMayhem (talk · contribs) and 72.70.189.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Giant Snowman 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It's unfortunate if they really have transitioned but WP:V is policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i am offended and saddened that any of you are actually questioning the legitamicy of my gender transition. however "meat/sock puppets" is friggin hilarious. Expect this clown show to be referenced in an upcoming song release that im sure you all will refuse to acknowledge as well. Galamity33 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the legitimacy of the transition of User:Galamity33 is not questioned. What is questioned is the verifiability of whether that user is the same person listed as a former band member—and now whether said member was anything more than a touring member. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the sources for a later life transition fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB? I don't think that mentioning a gender transition is unduly self-serving, for instance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they would if they weren't birth certificates and such. There's a very good reason we don't use such documents, and that's out of concern for our subjects rather than our readers in this case. Birth certificates can be forged or stolen, and really that's about all one needs to assumes another's identity. Youtube is not considered a reliable source, because so much of what you see has been edited or faked. There's often no way to tell. Then we have to worry about scammers and people just pulling some kind of hoax. (Yes, that does happen.) A self-published source should be at least verifiable that it really belongs to the subject in question. Now, there are ways to do that, because people have before (just don't ask me how because I'm as computer illiterate as they come). Better still, do some newspaper interviews or something like that, where we'd then have a reliable source verify the facts in question. Newspapers and magazines are always looking for stuff to fill their pages. There are a multitude of different ways to achieve that goal. The thing is, we have these BLP rules to protect our subjects from harm, and we need to be very sure we are getting our info from sources we can rely on. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an issue like this on Elisa Rae Shupe, where a notable detransitioner re-transitioned and contacted us asking that the article be fixed; but there wasn't yet any WP:RS sourcing. As I recall, what we did initially was remove anything poorly-sourced from the article, which at least made it less stridently wrong; looking over the history someone updated the pronouns shortly afterwards, using a blog source, which was probably technically insufficient due to the lack of clear verifiability but nobody objected. Eventually RS sources did appear but it took some time. It's a complex situation because unfortunately I don't think we can make general exceptions to WP:V - even aside from the fact that it's core policy, creating a general exception would invite malicious actors to use it for hoaxes. That said, if editors are completely convinced in an individual situation and absolutely nobody objects, it's a reasonable WP:IAR case; at least in the case of Shupe it seems to have worked out. And additionally, a blog can be used for basic biographical details via WP:ABOUTSELF if there's no reasonable doubts as to its veracity - if for whatever reason every editor is confident that a particular blog really is the user in question, we can probably use it in cases like this. Anyway, removing Moore's name from the page entirely for now due to lack of any sources covering them is probably the right call and is similar to the initial steps we took for Shupe - I suspect that that will usually be the case when someone's transition isn't covered, ie. they were probably marginally notable to begin with and closer inspection will find that we probably shouldn't have been saying so much about them in the first place. It may not be what the subject always wants but it at least is in line with the WP:BLP requirement to minimize the risk of harm, and people can then do things like set up Google News alerts for further coverage in case it ever appears. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the sources that show someone named George Moore was ever even in the band? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it, my search didn't really turn up anything for this that isn't WP:UGC. Older versions of List of Trivium band members list Moore under "Touring" rather than "Former Members", with a reference to the book Trivium - The Mark of Perseverance supporting the text Moore briefly performed as a second guitarist for Trivium before Beaulieu's addition. This was changed in January 2022. I don't have access to that book to confirm, but if any Trivium fans have the Ember to Inferno album then the liner notes might verify one way or the other. Otherwise, removing the entry might be the best option if we're unable to verify that Moore was actually a member of the band. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with just removing the name entirely. It's the easiest solution, given that they were only briefly with the band. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that this disruption is also occurring at The Autumn Offering band article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i was in the band ... it was published in a book. i have a copy. please dont remove a highlight of my life from history. ive literally been on this page for 20 years people. Galamity33 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest you do is contact various news sources to try and do an interview or otherwise get them to cover you; they don't have to be particularly high-quality for us to cite basic biographical details to them, just good enough to pass WP:V. That would give us enough sourcing to include you and mention it. Wikipedia covers what reliable sources say, so if you want to correct something about the record of your life and reliable sources haven't covered it yet, the solution is to try and get one of them to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Galamity33 If you were in the band, you were in the band. Whether or not Wikipedia says so won't change that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can view the liner notes of Ember to Inferno on discogs, which clearly show "George Moore" as having played acoustic guitar on the album. Joe Capricorn (talk) 18:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here is the book that chronicles their tenure with the group

"Trivium: The Mark of Perserance"

Timothy Gallaudet

I have tagged this article as being overly detailed. A number of sources used look questionable for the contentions being made and I think, generally, a culling and summarizing would work better. Thought to post here in case there were experts who knew how to handle this sort of thing.

jps (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the subject of the article has stated on X/Twitter that my questioning of some of the sources in his Wikipedia article is tantamount to "questioning [his] integrity". jps (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errm, if this guy has used his employees to write a Wikipedia bio for him, isn't this just WP:UPE? Bon courage (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An editor who has added significant material to the article has now stated at User_talk:LMG2000#February_2024 that the subject is their father. I have steered them toward WP:COI for guidance. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Tyson

Timothy Tyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came upon the following claim in the middle of a paragraph:

"The Emmett Till lynching has seen more than its share of liars. mississippitoday.org Joint research done by a well-known investigative reporter and researcher into the truthfulness of Blood Done Sign My Name. They're finding uncovered and revealed some faulty footnotes, wrong details, wrong dates and wrong quotations."

The charges against Tyson seemed quite contentious, to put it mildly. Moreover, this particular sentence had misspellings, was missing a footnote, and misrepresented the article. Because these charges are so serious and potentially libelous, I deleted the sentence rather than fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.167.20 (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. The account who added it, Shakewalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a SPA who has solely edited this biography over several years in order to add negative material, but who has been reverted every time. I would support indef blocking Shakewalk as WP:NOTHERE. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a joke. Does Thimothy Tyson have Trolls supporting his LIES? Tyson’s claimed that Donham lied and (he) Tyson had the proof she lied. The FBI reopened the Emmett Till’s case based on Tyson’s claim. The FBI question Tyson, and he had no recording or proof Donham lied. So, there you have it, Tyson was caught lying by the FBI in his Emmett Till book. So, the FBI closed the Emmett Till case. After a well-known investigative reporter was notified about Tyson lying in the Emmett Till book. That investigative reporter who had worked on the Emmett Till case for years looked into Blood Done Sign My Name. The investigative reporter decided to check into the truthfulness of Blood Done Sign My Name. The investigative reporter along with a historian /author found problems in Blood Done Sign My Name as well. They found faulty footnotes, wrong details, wrong dates and even wrong quotations. So, is it Wikipedia are YOU that is not letting the public know there is questionable information in Blood Done Sign My Name.
  You can check for yourself what this investigative reporter found and their names.
  https://www.gwcommonwealth.com/ The Emmett Till lynching has seen more than its share of liars. Is Tim Tyson one of them? | The Greenwood Commonwealth (gwcommonwealth.com)
  Now my question. Is Wikipedia a platform for liars? or just for advertising platform for misinformation? Shakewalk (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I somehow think this is going to be a waste of time, in the interest of assuming good faith, I'll see if I can help you out. First, when you start off by calling everybody liars, you've already lost the argument before it has even begun. Once you begin name calling, everything else just sounds like "blah blah blah". The old saying goes, you catch more flies with honey...
    That said, having thoroughly read through your statement, I have no clue what you are talking about. I'm sure it all makes sense in your mind, but to someone who has no clue about any of this, nor who all these people are you keep naming, it sounds like gibberish. No offense intended, but I seriously don't understand what you are trying to say. It's easy to talk about what you understand but damn, damn hard to write it in a way that others will know what you mean.
    Third, and foremost, everything you have said here and in the article are conclusions, not facts. Saying someone "found faulty footnotes" is a conclusion. Calling someone a liar is a conclusion. It doesn't really tell me anything except you think he's a liar. (In fact, it tells me a lot about you, but nothing about the person you're talking about.) Showing me what someone said that turned out to be false, well that's not a conclusion, but facts. When adding stuff to an article, it's important to remember, nobody cares about our conclusions. They only want the facts. Readers like to come to their own conclusions, and giving them ours just comes off as condescending (and, frankly, far, far less convincing).
    Fourth, everything added to an article must be found in a reliable source, which you need to cite at the time it's added. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - The source is Mitchell 2023, the text in Special:Diff/1173980765 is actually verbatim from the source, I'm not sure why we have to dance around naming Jerry Mitchell and Brandon Arvesen as the two who have stated Blood Done Sign My Name to be faulty (in response to whom Tyson has pointed out that parts of the book are from memory of when xe was 10/11 years old and xe makes no claim of xyr memory to be perfect), and the person with the Shakewalk (talk · contribs) account cannot write well (either in articles or on talk pages to make a point) for toffee.
      - Mitchell, Jerry (2023-08-28). "The Emmett Till Lynching Has Seen More Than Its Share Of Liars. Is Tim Tyson One Of Them?". Mississippi Today.
    - Uncle G (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this more, I think Shakewalk's case has merit, but they've gone about it in the wrong way. There does seem to be quite a bit of discussion in news sources about how one of the bombshell allegations made in Tyson's Till book that Till's accuser Carolyn Bryant Donham recanted her court testimony in a recorded conversation with Tyson was not substantiated when the recording was examined by the FBI, and then Tyson gave inconsistent explanations as to why this was, and then he gave a date when the interview took place that was contradicated by email evidence saying he hadn't even met her yet by that time. There was already some mention of this in the article, but I've expanded it using the Mississippi Today article. Shakewalk's were problematic for a variety of reasons, but hopefully my edits resolve the issue. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have been focused on trying to expose Tyson for lying in Blood Done Sign My Name for a while. It was all ways removed. I’m not that familiar with the Wikipedia rules. And today I see today where his credible is now in question. I i I see changes. Again Sorry. Thanks to all that made this happen! Shakewalk (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marielia zaloumi

For privacy i dont want my birth date to be on wikipedia please rmeove it Zacharoula20 (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the article to my watchlist. The date of birth in the article was never properly sourced so should not be restored to the article. Schazjmd (talk) 19:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you i have requested to be removed i can prove that i am

Real marielia zaloumi by photos on your email Zacharoula20 (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

twomad

A YouTuber that TMZ is reporting has died. More eyes would be welcome. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be at Draft:twomad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've draftified the article, but there is an AfD open at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Twomad. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting this here because in light of the drafting, I'm unsure if the AfD will close soon. I did identify two potential sources: a scholarly article discussing his content in several hundred words, and a NY Daily News (reliable per WP:RSPSS) piece reporting on his death. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elise gravel

Numerous news articles have referenced potentially troubling stance of Ms. gravel in relation to Israel and Jewish Canadians. This is national news in Canada.

A publicist or another continues for the last 2-3 months delete all references to these news articles. Reference should be included and the entry should be temporarily locked.

See e.g following Montreal and National sources including the CBC and BNN (among many others).

https://www.thesuburban.com/blogs/sjn/prominent-childrens-author-elise-gravels-anti-israel-campaign-prompts-action-from-the-jewish-public-library/article_cb31f25c-c4fe-11ee-963a-77c9b96c3380.html

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7108041

https://bnnbreaking.com/world/canada/quebec-author-elise-gravel-in-the-eye-of-antisemitism-storm

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/montreal-library-moves-childrens-books-over-authors-israel-comments/wcm/29c81956-79c3-4028-9579-44541bfadbd1/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.198.58.61 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The place to start a discussion on that is Talk:Elise Gravel. Consider WP:BLP, WP:PROPORTION and WP:EW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did start a discussion, sort of:[13] However, people disagreeing with you doesn't make them "Publicist". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, BNN Breaking is probably not a source that we want to use (ever). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to say that though the issue was added to the article, that source was not used. Spider sense or something, idk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie Kaye Thomas

Page was previously protected (diffs in link) for ten days. Hours after expiration, disruptive edits resumed by same IP 2601:205:4300:54F0. Editor received 48 hour ban. After expiration, unsourced edits continued yet again.

I have reverted dozens of unsourced, disruptive, and non-WP:RS edits by this user on this page alone since October 2023. This behavior extends to many other pages as well (Max Minghella, for one) and none of my requests in edit summaries or his talk pages have been acknowledged or heeded. Can something please be done about this WP:NOTLISTENING editor? Rift (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of 2601:205:4300:54F0:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is odd. Insistent upon removing unsourced names and exact dates of birth from other articles for about 3 months, xe is adding unsourced material to two: Eddie Kaye Thomas and Max Martini. There's no apparent reason that these two are singled out for doing the exact opposite. And because people like Bringingthewood and FMSky aren't paying attention, we see unsourced exact dates and places of birth being re-added by them contrary to content policy, to articles such as Jack McGee (actor) and Damon Dayoub. Uncle G (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor and contact me again when I don't pay attention. Sometimes I follow the leader when a normal editor reverts an IP that was a bit odd at times. About 90% of the times I'm thanked for it. Trust me, I won't screw up your day, week or month touching unsourced names and exact dates any longer. Thanks for the ping and always feel free to come by and leave me a note. I'm being honest with you, because I don't remember these pages. That's why we still have erasers on pencils. Sorry again for the misunderstanding. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heidi Lenhart

I found this source https://nedhardy.com/2023/10/26/heidi-lenhart/ for Heidi Lenhart's birth date and added it to the article but the editor Meters reverted it without any further motivation. I don't see anything wrong with it though and neither does another experienced editor that uses to remove unsourced birth days in BLPs. What do you others think? DrKilleMoff (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Wangeci Schofield

The Biography with regard to what happenned to Chief Justice Schofield is biased and does not reflect the truth with regard to what transpired with regard to the issue rearding the Constitution and Judicial Services Act. I wish to draw your attention to the following:

Firstly Chief Justice Schofield was appointed in that capacity under the Constitution. The Office of Chief Justice was enshrined in the Constistution prior to the Promulgation of the Gibraltar Constitution on 14th October 2006. The 2006 Constitution did not introduce the Office of President of the Courts. The Judicial Service Commission Act 2007 did. What the Chief Minister was doing was demoting the Chief Justice from being head of the Judiciary and creating the President of the Court of Appeal as overall in charge. It is noteworthy that Gibraltar has a visiting Court of Appeal made up of retired Court of Appeal Judges from the UK. The President of the Court of Appeal was and is not resident in Gibraltar and visits during sitting sessions. The Chief Justice objected to this change which was not enshrined in the Constitution. Upon taking legal advice he filed a Petition for an independent Judge to determine whether the Section of the Act demoting him was Constitutional. The Judge appointed to hear the case was a close family friend of the President of the Court of Appeal. He was also appointed to hear my libel case. I still maintain that the Judge should not have been appointed in the light of his relationship with the President of the Courts who had accepted an office which was demoting the Chief Justice. It is biased in its failure to mention that Fabian Picardo was elected as Chief Minister in 2011 and the provisions of the Judicial Service Act repealed the provision creating the Ofice of President of the Courts and reverts to the position that the Chief Justice is Head of the Judiciary. That is what Chief Justice Schofield maintained and was removed from office for his effort to protect the Gibraltar Constitution. It is therefore inaccurate to fail to include that the law was amended after Chief Minister Peter Caruana left Office and Justice Schofield vindicated.

Secondly with regard to the Judicial Service Commission the Chief Justice had reommended such a Commission for the purpose of appointment of Judges and Magistrates to protect the Institutional Independence of the Judiciary in an Opening of the Legal Year Speech prior to the promulgation of the New Constitution. It is misleading for the information on Wikipedia to give the impression that he was opposed to the creation of the Judicial Service Commission. Chief Justice Schofield was among the Group of senior parliamentarians, lawyers, academics and judges who met in Latimer House and produced the Latimer House Principles on the Relationship between the Three Arms of Government. He was familiar with the principles including the appointment and training of judges and funding for the judiciary. These are the issues that created friction between him and the establishment which led to the provisions which were in effect demoting him. There is a fundamental principle that you cannot demote a judge after appointment. The British Government is a signatory to the Commonwealth Principles (Latimer House Guidelines) on the Relationship between the Three Arms of Government. These Commonwealth Values are important and were being ignored. Once the Complaint was filed the lawyers embarked on a trawl to find grounds for removal.

Thirdly the Privy Council Decision is in the public domain. The Wikipedia entry states that he was removed for misbehaviour and inability. The Chief Justice was not removed for misbehaviour but for inability, The Ruling is clear that the inability arose from the tensions that arose by the introduction of an unconstutional section to demote the Chief Justice. Chief Justice Schofield continued to sit as a Recorder in the UK following his remova;l from Gibraltar until his retirment from the English Judiciary. It is libellous for your forum to state that he was removed for misbehaviour. Many of the grounds that the Tribunal had found as proven were not adopted by the Privy Council.

Fourthly,with regard to my case against James Neish the report is inaccurate in that it fails to mention that I filed a libel case after James Neish accused me of interfering with the Bar when I pointed to him in an email as Chairman of the Bar that the provision relating to the President of the Court was unconstitutional. I informed him that his views that a judge's wife has no freedom of speech was "dinasour like". I am a fierce defender of the right to freedom of expression and speech and having worked with the Bar in Gibraltar in promoting a culture of Human Rights I maintain I was within my rights to point out what was an unconstitutional provision in the law. This led to the Complaints filed by about 7 senior counsel some of whom were related to or partners of the Chief Minister for the removal of the Chief Justice. I have been proved right.

With regard to my withdrawal of the case it is true I decided to act in person when Sir Michael Turner declined to recuse himself. I have never spoken about what transpired nor has my husband . But I consider it wrong for your forum to be used to mislead the public and damage reputations. The right to a fair hearing is a fundamental human right and cronyism in the administration of justice or cases leads to denial of such rights. These are principles that I hold dear and am unrepentant about.

I trust that you will inlude the facts and remove the libel and misleading information contained in your report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:D6CD:8E00:F8D0:770E:BBB7:3343 (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, anonymous editor. Thank you for the information but, unfortunately, there's not much we can do with this. In most cases, content on Wikipedia should be based on reliable, secondary sources. Primary sources like the Constitution and court records aren't useful, except when they've been analyzed by secondary sources—and then we cite those secondary sources. We're not here to figure out who's right and who's wrong, only to summarize what the secondary sources say. If they're wrong, your best recourse is ask for corrections or retractions from the media or get coverage for your side of things. Armed with those sources, you can make edit requests on the article's Talk page, per our conflict of interest policy. But if, as you say, you haven't spoken about this before, there's really nothing we can do.

I would also suggest avoiding words like "libel" in your conversations here, as that can appear like a legal threat. Wikipedia has a policy against legal threats, which can include blocking accounts—and that gets you nowhere. Again, we don't create the news or take sides in disputes. We simply summarize what secondary sources have said about the subject. Woodroar (talk) 16:41, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, almost the entire "Controversies" section in that WP:BLP, and more, is uncited and could reasonably be removed at any moment. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. Woodroar (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have Noted the response to my information posted yesterday as well as the removal of the controversies section. It was important that whoever posted was aware that some aspects of what was posted was libelous. I am pleased the same has been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7c:d6cd:8e00:319b:1e60:491a:2111 (talk)

Judit Selymes

Not quite sure if this or WP:RSN would be the better venue. I was approached by one of my mentees who said that Selymes died on the 7th of February. My own search for sources only found a very brief obituary on Legacy.com. I'm not even sure if it's the same person, as there's practically no description of the subject's history in the obit, but the birth date matches. Past discussions have been conflicting on the reliability of Legacy.com (see past discussion on RSN and past discussion on BLPN), but given that Selymes' notability stems from the 70s, I doubt that better sources will turn up. Liu1126 (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander_Greba

Alexander Greba The biography section of this article does not provide any sources; With the exception of the length of the subjects prison sentence. The linguistic characteristics suggest that the origin of the article is not a person who understands the English language. The talk page sates that part of the article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia page but it is not reasonable for contemporary translation software to lack proficiency to such a severe degree. The information provided sounds as though it was either; made up, or learnt from gossip. The entire biography needs to be deleted or rewritten.

Grover Furr

May I please ask if this source supports the addition of revisionist for Grover Furr. Specifically, the sentence in the article is:

"Grover Carr Furr III (born April 3, 1944) is an American professor of Medieval English literature at Montclair State University who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin".

The source is Haynes, John Earl; Klehr, Harvey (2003). In Denial: Historians, Communism and Espionage. San Francisco: Encounter Books. pp. 26–27. ISBN 9781893554726. May I provide the quote from the text:

While historians led the way, politically committed academics from other fields eagerly jumped onto the revisionist band-wagon. In the course of reviewing a book by two fellow leftist scholars, Barbara Foley, an English professor at Rutgers Univer-sity, objected to their critical stance toward “Stalinism,” writing that “the term ‘Stalinism’ perhaps needs deconstruction more than any other term in the contemporary political lexicon.” She went on to endorse Arch Getty’s revisionist account of the Soviet Union and labeled Robert Conquest an “offender against what I consider responsible scholarship.” In her own book, after some perfunctory acknowledgement that there was a dark side to Stal-inism, Foley enthusiastically praised its “tremendous achieve-ments . . . the involvement of millions of workers in socialist construction, the emancipation of women from feudalistic prac-tices, the struggle against racism and anti-Semitism, the foster-ing of previously suppressed minority cultures . . . the creation of a revolutionary proletarian culture, in both the USSR and other countries.” Grover Furr, an English professor at Montclair State University, lauded the creation of Communist regimes in an essay-review entitled “Using History to Fight Anti-Commu-nism: Anti-Stalinism Hurts Workers, Builds Fascism.” In Furr’s view, “billions of workers all over the world are exploited, mur-dered, tortured, oppressed by capitalism.

Thank you.Stix1776 (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave the whole "best known" clause out, as so: "...at Montclair State University. Furr has written books, papers, and articles about Soviet history..." And then discuss Haynes/Klehr's criticism in the body, keeping in mind that they're not disinterested observer academics but considered themselves opponents. From Harvey Klehr:

"The disagreements between the two camps were only partly generational, because some traditionalists, like myself and my long-time co-author John Haynes, were roughly the same age as our revisionist counterparts. To some degree, the combatants were divided by current political loyalties, with most revisionists locating themselves at least on the left wing of the Democratic Party, if not as members of various socialist groupings. But traditionalists themselves ranged from such self-identified socialists as Irving Howe to conservative Republicans."

Schazjmd (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Can I ask you if you think that "revisionist" should stay in the lead as with or without attribution? Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. What I meant to say is that I don't understand if "best known" or "who is best known for his revisionist views regarding the Soviet Union and Joseph Stalin". Maybe I'm tired, but I don't 100% understand your meaning.Stix1776 (talk) 14:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revisionist is sourced, but I don't really recommend it and would prefer to avoid it in the lead if we can. Revisionist has multiple meanings, within the study of history generally meaning challenging the established consensus, or specifically the "revisionist schools" of thought for example in Soviet studies. It also has political connotations in Marxist thinking. On one hand, we want to trust the reader to follow Wikilinks if they don't understand something, on the other we still want to avoid predictable misunderstandings of non-specialist readers. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Revisionist" must stay in the biography. The only way that Furr is notable at all is his revisionist writings. If he did not make a furor with his revisionist claims, he would not have a Wikipedia biography. We are being kind to call him revisionist, as his views are also denialist. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Identity Taken Over?

Neeraj Gupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I noticed this biography Neeraj Gupta. The original article was created for a different person of the same name in the year 2008, and it was associated with the original person till "10 August 2017", but, afterwards, few malicious users (few of them are already blocked) took over, gradually changed it for a different person. The history is clearly showing it. I would like to know if this is an acceptable practice in Wikipedia? Here is the reference of the original person: https://www.cuttingthechai.com/2006/12/364/the-real-parliament-attackers-revealed/ Apswikicontrib (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Apswikicontrib, I've reverted the article to original subject. I don't think it was appropriate for editors to change the subject of the article. If they wanted to write about another subject they could have written a new article rather than taking over an existing one. Disambiguation could have been sorted out later. TarnishedPath^talk 10:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have created a draft for the second person which I have submitted to AfC at Draft:Neeraj_Gupta_(Sculptor) TarnishedPath^talk 10:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the SPI for the blocked socks involved in the "takeover" it looks like the sockfarm is about paid editing. I haven't looked at that draft, but caution should be exercised in basing anything on what was in the article, with careful scrutiny of GNG etc DeCausa (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got a shit tonne of hits on google for the sculptor. A lot more than the cartoonist. The cartoonist seems to have moved into politics a bit and that article could probably do with a bit of an update given it's a stub, but I'm not from India so it would probably be a lot easier for someone with more knowledge on the subject to edit. I'm pretty sure about the GNG for the sculptor but I thought I'd do it through AfC just to be safe. TarnishedPath^talk 11:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It absolutely isn't, this is a WP:HIJACK done to spam while circumventing AfC. If you see something like this it should be reverted. jp×g 🗯️ 19:51, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have history split the edits about the sculptor to Draft:Neeraj Gupta (Sculptor), leaving only edits about the cartoonist at Neeraj Gupta. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan

Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan § Controversy Section about whether a "Controversy" section should be included. It was subject of an edit war and the article is currently fully protected. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Zyda

The Michael Zyda Wikipedia page is full of defamatory information that is just not true. See http://mikezyda.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikezyda (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 Feb 2024 (UTC)

Anything a subject says that could feasibly be challenged by a reasonable person cannot be used as a source. Do you have issues with specific passages in the article? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 20:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mikezyda: Do you have any secondary sources to back the claim up? See WP:Self-published sources for why we avoid subjects' websites and other primary sources. —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not defamatory now, but the version from a few days ago was a BLP disaster, blatant BLP violations (like a completely unsourced [refactored] in the lead, and poorly sourced negative material). Obviously somebody editing their own biography is not ideal, but Zyda was clearly justified in removing this material in this case. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before posting here, the editor in question did delete two sections from the article, at least one of which is a violation of WP:BLP (and which I was going to intentionally not mention by name in this discussion.) —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you respond like the Zyda's complant was completely baseless then? The user who added the material @QuarioQuario54321: has over 5,000 edits, and their talkpage shows numerous warnings without them responding to them at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In all cases I would subsequently comply with the warnings. Was I supposed to respond to them?QuarioQuario54321 (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QuarioQuario54321: even a simple reponse like "acknowledged" or "understood" would be good. In future, please don't use YouTube videos or student newspapers for serious allegations against living people, even if they are likely true. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia The obvious reply when a COI user posts here and cites a COI site as a source is to ask for independent sources, especially when there's nothing obvious in the current version of the article. It took a little digging into the history to find out what happened. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the editor in question has a conflict of interest, the content in question was indeed wildly and blatantly a violation of our BLP policies, and ought to have been removed (as indeed it was). jp×g 🗯️ 18:22, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Keller-Lynn

The article UNRWA October 7 controversy, which lists several reports from leading newspapers describing the allegations, was recently changed in a way that raises questions related to BLP. The change included changing the label of one report from "Wall Street Journal report" to "Keller-Lynn article in the Wall Street Journal". Following this, negative information about the journalist was added, along with a photo of her wearing uniform, that seems to have been taken from the internet, and another piece related to "Accusations of author bias". This series of edits seemed strange to me, and it became even more strange upon discovering that the same editor had also wrote a new article (seems to be mostly negative) about the journalist, which I am not sure is notable enough for their own article. Could some shed more light on this? Is this okay, or, problematic?Eladkarmel (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD the bio if it does not pass GNG. As for the article, whether additional material beyond simple attribution in the article is undue depends on how much reliance is placed on the WSJ source. If otoh, the argument is with the editor who made these edits, this is the wrong place for that. Selfstudier (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family

United States House Oversight Committee investigation into the Biden family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following this edit regarding the arrest of an FBI informant, I added the following:

James Comer, Chair of the Oversight Committee, responded, "the impeachment inquiry is not reliant on [Mr. Smirnov]. It is based on a large record of evidence, including bank records and witness testimony, revealing that Joe Biden knew of and participated in his family's business dealings."

The source cited was The Washington Times, however, Comer's verbatim response was also reported in The Hill, The Independent, USA Today, and many others.

My edit was reverted, and in this discussion the reasons for reverting were:

It is a BLP violation.
It is libelous, because no evidence "has actually been put forth, despite 13 months of investigations...Comer, as is his habit, is posturing in the absence of such evidence."
It must include "multiple high-quality sources, and include their evaluations of what he says, as they will likely criticize it. That he says it is not in doubt, but the BS needs to be called out. Context is important."
Comer's response is "a press release".

The input of others regarding whether this is a BLP violation, and whether WP:DUE would support this edit's inclusion, would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, certainly the Washington Times would be a poor source, particularly as there are good sources. If Comer's statement that there is a "large record of evidence" that the public somehow hasn't seen is included; I should think more of Smirnov's prosecutor's statements should be included. They would be found in the Independent source. Then, as Zaathras says, we are getting into WP:MANDY. How else to respond to an embarassing developement? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How you or I personally interpret Mr. Comer's response is irrelevant; he is the Chair of the committee about which this Wikipedia article is named, and this was his widely reported response. My concern is whether this was a BLP violation against Mr. Biden, and whether WP:DUE applies. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't see why this was brought here so quickly. There is discussion at the ATP. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forum shopping? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:39, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion myself. If someone has a BLP question, I think they should by all means bring it here. The problem is, this is not an easy-to-make-out dispute, that is, without some extensive background knowledge into what exactly the dispute is about. To an outsider, I need far more info than what is either here or on the talk page to figure out how or why this should be considered a BLP problem. Unless it's a case where a possible BLP vio is blatantly clear and evident, then it's usually best to debate it for a while on the talk page before bringing it here, so people not familiar with the subject will have a better idea of all the nuances involved.

That said, here's my constructive criticism. I tried reading the article, but found my eyes glazing over within the first few paragraphs. And my goodness are there a lot of those paragraphs to parse through. This must be a recent event (probably still ongoing, I'm guessing), because it reads like a collage of newspaper articles rather than an encyclopedia. My advice is, far less detail and much more summarizing is needed to make it interesting and easy to comprehend. Zaereth (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stepping away from the BLP issue, the excruciating level of detail in this article is inappropriate per NOTNEWS. The topic is notable, and summary coverage of the broad events makes sense, but this reads like a day-to-day blotter, which we should not be doing from primary/newspaper sources. Unfortunately we have far too many editors working on current events that write actively to this level of coverage, which is going to create massive cleanup problems in the future. Masem (t) 23:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In their defense, it's extremely hard to write from a bird's-eye view and historical frame when the sources are all stuck at ground level and information changes daily. News sources in particular are at the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of reliable source, partly for that reason and partly because they need to sensationalize even the most boring things to fill their pages and sell their products. It's almost impossible to get the perspective needed until long after the fact. Still, I assume everyone on both sides can agree that we'd rather have people actually read the article than get bored and leave, or simply fall asleep before they even reach the half-way point.

What I would try to avoid is 1.) what I call "TV Guide summaries", you know, the kind that assumes the reader already knows what is going on and who all these people are. (For example, "John and Cameron try to sort out the tension between them while Sarah looks into her medical health and Cromartie searches for a plastic surgeon", when the summary should be, "The Connors travel forward in time ten years, but are followed by the Terminator chasing them, who rebuilds himself and takes the guise of an FBI agent". One gives the gist of it while the other assumes the reader knows all of it beforehand. And 2.) try to avoid just stitching everything together into a running quilt that keeps going for miles and miles. I know it's so tempting to include every minute detail, especially when hyped up by the media on a daily basis, but at some point it's important to step back and look for the forest among the trees. Try to give the most important information in the fewest words possible, and that means weeding out a lot of the fluff, unimportant names, and other boring details that just put the reader to sleep. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few thoughts. Various techniques should be used, and use as many different ones in the same article as is convenient. One that works well is to compartmentalize topics into sections. Yes, you're absolutely right that we already do this, but we should not be afraid to create new sections. (I suspect newbies may be hesitant to do this.) We must notice when we're stuffing too much into one box, when we start putting all the socks in one drawer, when we really should be using two drawers and separating them into whites and colors. That breaks up the "running commentary" that goes on and on forever. Sometimes this means we need to move stuff around as it becomes apparent that "like" is not "with like" anymore, but has become separated and no longer connected with the others in its topic group. We end up with needless duplication when this happens.

Some things are best dealt with in a chronological timeline, and others in topical groupings. Break it up with an occasional quotebox and image. Throw in a chart or table when convenient. Appeal to more than word lovers. Appeal to the visual senses. Don't summarize everything, especially controversial stuff. Then quotes are essential, and attribute them. Whatever we are doing, remember to respect the hard work of other editors. We are not paper, so preserve rather than delete. Summarization and condensation should still preserve the essence and as many RS as possible. (The references section is really, sort of, the most important part of the article. That is the foundation of everything here!) Above all, have fun learning and passing on good knowledge. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:25, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nako Nakatsuka

Hi, I'd be grateful if someone could have a look at Nako Nakatsuka. I have twice reverted the addition of information about her relationships (engagement and affair) as unsourced. It has been added again with a private Instagram as a source - not sure if this is acceptable. Diff. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 07:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this is appropriate. It seems to be gossip about the subject of the article and other people she has worked with, all of whom are WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURES. The Instagram posts appear private so I don't know exactly what they say, but even in the best-possible case, we can't use WP:SOCIALMEDIA posts to discuss third parties. Mgp28 (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with this. Tacyarg (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Koppel

In regards to Gavin Koppel, an original member of the band Incubus and a well known Dj, Musician, and artist. Over 15 years ago, someone created a wikipedia page regarding Koppel's legacy. Over the years, many editors have added information, good and bad. Recently I noticed that there were many dead links and misinformation. I finally took the time to clean up the page, adding relevant information, and solid, unbiased facts regarding the past and new artistic works. As soon as I removed all unfounded, defamatory comments, a user "Broc" attempted to revert those derogatory lies. I corrected him and then he attempted to delete the page. This is vandalism. Please see the talk in regards to this. Gavin Koppel has sold over one million copies with Incubus, and he is still a very active musician with current downloads, records, and tapes being released to this very day. THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyonCruz (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you believe properly sourced material is defamatory in nature. While you're at it, please also explain why you're using both this account and User:24.205.63.99 to engage in the discussion around deletion here [14] Dark-World25 (talk) 08:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very simply, it wasn't properly sourced material. Broc is knowingly and willfully lying to you. The statements were defamatory in regards to the unfounded assertion that Koppel lost a court trial against incubus, and as a result, attempted to retaliate against Kilmore 7 years later. The cited source connected to a dead link, with no regards to any of the subject matter, Broc was well aware of this, and he still reverted those defamatory remarks, which is malicious in nature and against wikipedia guidelines. In fact the new information added to Koppel's page will show that Incubus actually filed for a motion to seal the results of the arbitration (in 2003) and the result / judgement of that hearing is classified information which nobody outside of the legal parties involved is privy to. As an avid wikipedia editor, Broc clearly knows better. As far as usernames, etc., I am a rookie wikipedia editor, and I have no malicious intent. Navigating through the process of becoming a wikipedia editor is unfamiliar to me and I'm trying my best to follow the rules. I am in a location where more than one person resides. Thank you for your time. LyonCruz (talk) 00:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Broc: You might want to take a look at this discussion too Dark-World25 (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dark-World25 thanks for the ping, it's appreciated. All I did is revert what I interpreted as vandalism (removal of properly sourced material), then candidate the page for deletion. Candidating a page for deletion is not vandalism, as deletions are decided by the community based on consensus, and I already mentioned this on Gavin Koppel's talk page. @LyonCruz there is no need to have the same discussion over and over on different forums. Please use the AfD discussion to present why, according to you, Gavin Koppel fulfills notability criteria for band members. Broc (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you give me any advice for improving this article?--Jselod (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What you reverted was clearly conjecture that was against the wikipedia guidelines. When you couldn't manipulate the legacy of Koppel into a negative tone, you then decided to delete the page. Had the negative incorrect information remained, you'd have no problem with the page remaining. If the wikipedia page for Koppel is in fact deleted, it's only a matter of time before a new one pops up. Koppel has a cult following and is a legend. LyonCruz (talk) 23:46, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jselod No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. Broc (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of notability below can always be improved upon: Jselod didn't mention "editing", but specifically mentioned "Improving". Please respond accordingly.

the main releases on which the DJ is credited.

Enjoy Incubus EP (1997)

S.C.I.E.N.C.E. LP (1997)

Spawn: The Original Soundtrack Compilation (1997)

Monuments and Melodies (Japanese Edition) Compilation (2009)

The Essential Incubus Compilation (2012)

When Incubus Attacks DVD (2001)

Incubus fear the groove (2002)

DJ 1987 Negative (2002)

87 Ways DVD (2005)

S.C.I.E.N.C.E. scratch record GR-002 (2021)

Sounds of S.C.I.E.N.C.E. Mixtape (2021)

This list is not complete and there has not yet been a mention of other mixtape releases as DJ1987, nor a section of the article regarding his various residencies and performances and recordings as DJ 1987.

There are many ways to improve the article. LyonCruz (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by notability in the context of Wikipedia. What you have listed here are all primary sources, called that because they directly involve the subject. Those are the types of sources newspapers and magazines and books use, which is why we call them secondary sources, because they are at least one step removed from the subject. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source (three steps removed), meaning they get their info from secondary sources, and so does Wikipedia. We didn't make up these rules. They've been around for almost 2000 years, and that's how all encyclopedias are written.

To determine WP:Notability, you need to go find some secondary sources, meaning things like newspapers, magazines, and books. They don't necessarily need to be online sources either, you can try checking the library too. Primary sources do not help determine notability for Wikipedia's purposes. We need secondary sources. For example, my favorite band is Blue Oyster Cult. Buck Dharma, Eric Bloom, and Allen Lanier all have their own articles, but only because they have been written about extensively in secondary sources. Unfortunately, Joe Bouchard and Danny Miranda don't have articles of their own, so their names simply redirect to the article about the band. This is simply because nobody has written much about them in secondary sources. (And Danny Miranda has got to be the best bass player I've ever seen, hands down.)

This is true for a lot of bands. I'd love to write an article about my friend Brock Lindow, but unfortunately no sources have written much about him, so his name just links to the band. To have an article about him we need sources that don't just simply mention his name, but give us enough biographical material about him to make a decent article. (Actually, this was just an example, because writing such an article would not only be a conflict of interest, but I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. Too cruel! See: WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.) Please read the links I provided to get a better understanding. Anyhow, I hope that helps explain what types of sources you need to look for, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your input! Very helpful. I did some research in these regards and what I found is extremely helpful in improving this article. It turns out that there were two very recent (2024) independent and reliable news sources from New Zealand who have written abut Koppel as DJ Lyfe, independent from Incubus. These qualified sources are cited on Koppel's page. Apparently DJ Lyfe is still recording and performing music worldwide. Below is what's now been added to Koppel's wikipedia page to improve the article, specifically in regards to Wikipedia's notability guidelines as requested by Broc:

DJ Lyfe's most recent performance as a solo recording artist, released in January of 2024, is a collaboration with New Zealand's Kaosis and Yap of One Minute Silence and Cristian Machado of Lion's at the Gate. DJ Lyfe is also featured in a music video released with the song. Joining the guest trifecta is the legendary, DJ Lyfe who was fundamental in bringing scratching to rock. DJ Lyfe scratches unused samples on Over This that he created for Incubus’ sophomore and critically acclaimed album S.C.I.E.N.C.E. According to a press release, Lyfe‘s contributions include unused parts he originally created for Incubus‘ 1997 gold-certified sophomore album “S.C.I.E.N.C.E.“. Kaosis‘ vocalist/producer Xen commented:“These three figureheads broke the musical ground that our generation built our careers on. They are true pioneers.”

So there should now be not a single reason to delete the article, but rather continue improving this biography of a living person. THANK YOU LyonCruz (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That will be decided at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gavin Koppel, not here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How and when is the decided? By Whom? Thank you. LyonCruz (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LyonCruz, a discussion for deletion is typically open for at least 7 days. Interested editors review the sources and provide their opinion. An uninvolved editor reviews the discussion when it's done and determines whether the consensus of the discussion is to keep or delete the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid cluttering up the deletion discussion, I'll give my advice here. You'll want to avoid bludgeoning the deletion discussion with irrelevant arguments, as that will only hurt, not help your case. As Schazjmd said, everything here is done by consensus, which is different than a simple vote. (Please follow the link provided.) There's no boss. Nobody's in charge around here. We discuss things to death and try to achieve some kind of consensus, preferably without getting all upset at one another. You still have time to go find more sources, so don't give up yet.

That said, the sources you provided aren't good enough. Those are called press releases, which is not the same as a news or magazine article. (Only a small fraction of newspapers and magazines are articles, the rest is ads, op/ed columns, and press releases, so it's helpful to know which is which. It's pretty easy to tell the difference, actually, if you look closely.) The thing to remember is that you're writing a biography, not a resume. In other words, we need sources that tell us about the person, not just his career or what he's doing these days. Where was he born? Grew up? Where did he go to school? What did he do before he got into music. How did he get into music? What were his influences? Things of that nature, that tell who this person is and not just what they do. Not easy to do, which is why most band members don't have their own articles. (And compared to other encyclopedias, our notability requirements are very lax.) Still, don't give up yet, because there's still time. And if it gets deleted, then that's not a big deal either, because you can always keep trying in draftspace and if you do find some good sources the article can always be recreated in the future. There's no hurry.

Take some time to read other biographies. See what they have that this one is missing. Look for sources that can fill in all those missing blanks. Go edit some articles that you don't really care about so much, so that you can see how this all works without getting all emotional. These things will all help you very much in the long run. And if consensus doesn't go your way, there's no need to lose any sleep over it. Life will still go on. Once again, good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. I really appreciate the info. What is upsetting is that the person who nominated this article for deletion didn't seem to do so in an attempt to better the wikipedia community, but rather as a power trip because that person, Broc, couldn't have their way with defaming Koppel. I guess that's typical behavior here. Personally I have no further interest in Koppel's page. I assume that if it's deleted, there will be another created at some point. LyonCruz (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LyonCruz, I suggest you avoid speculating about another editor's motivation. You might want to read WP:NPA. Schazjmd (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. It is notated. LyonCruz (talk) 02:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Schaz. That will get you nowhere fast. It's a form of deflection. Assume Broc's motives are good, even if diametrically opposed to yours, and things will go much better for you. The way the discussion is going, it likely will end in deletion. I can tell you're upset, and that is understandable. If this was easy, everybody would be doing it. When you have calmed down and feel better you may find those sources we require, and you'll be free to write a draft and submit it to WP:Articles for creation where editors will assist in getting it up to standards. Nothing deleted is truly gone forever, because it will all be saved in the history. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't matter to me at this point. I've lost interest. I have no emotions wrapped up in this at all. I never did. Apparently the article didn't belong in the first place and what's fair is fair. I am still new to the wikipedia platform and I have learned a lot from it. I admire the democracy this platform presents. I believe that the page is much better off deleted than it was with a bunch of rumors and unfounded derogatory comments. Thanks for your help and thanks to all for educating me on the intricate ways of wikipedia. LyonCruz (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last reply to this discussion. I have no personal connection to Gavin Koppel nor to Incubus, and by that I mean I had not even heard about them, nor listened once to their songs, until I stumbled upon an IP edit that I considered to be vandalism and I reverted. At that point, and only then, I read the page and realized it does not fulfill Wikipedia's notability standards. I candidated the page for deletion, as it is the right of any registered user on Wikipedia.

The community, more than five different editors in total, expressed their judgment on the notability of the subject, and the consensus was to redirect the page as an alternative to deletion.

The content is not deleted, it is still visible in the page's history; if one day reliable secondary sources appear, said content can be reinstated. Until then, I see no need to discuss this any further. Broc (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay-Z

At Jay-Z, Instantwatym has repeatedly been adding to the lead that albums Jay-Z recorded with R. Kelly was done with "singer and convicted sex trafficker R. Kelly", see this diff. Is it appropriate to include in the lead of a biography of somebody else entirely crimes that somebody was convicted of at some later date? Is it WP:SYNTH to include that descriptor in the description of the album on the page Jay-Z. Along with this, they have been seeking to included pending civil claims against Jay-Z that he fathered a child with a woman who was under 18. Both in the lead and in the body. Is it appropriate to include civil claims that remain unproven allegations in a BLP? nableezy - 15:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

R-Kelly Identifier

- The individual is identified as a convicted sex trafficker with crimes predating decades. Hence he was a sex trafficker at the time the albums were recorded. Identifying him as such is not SYNTH. In the article edit history you've tried to establish a new precedent that the identifiers of notable individuals with seperate articles have no relevance to Jay-Z. When the same precedent was used to remove identifiers for other notable individuals you reverted. Which quitely frankly comes across as a violaiton of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV, since are only taking issue with the identifier of one controversial collaborator and are contradicting yourself to keep this information removed.

Civil Lawsuits

- Lawsuits, even civil lawsuits pending trial, should be included in the legal issues section so long as they are sourced. Mentioning that an individual is involved in an active state supreme court lawsuit in the lead is very relevant. It's arguably the most important update in his lfie at the moment. Again, omitting these seems to be more of a violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPOV more than anything.

Other editors and admins are welcome to debate and take any action they wish. Thanks. Instantwatym (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can tell something is SYNTH when you use the word hence. nableezy - 17:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word hence is used here. If someone is convicted as a serial killer with a convcition based on murders predating decades, then they were also a serial killer in the decades prior to their conviction. Same thing goes for sex traffickers such a Kelly, who was a sex trafficker at the time the albums were recorded, much prior to his conviction. Instantwatym (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless sources make the same conclusion you are making, your conclusion remains the most basic form of SYNTH. A+B=C. nableezy - 17:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my conclusion. It is part of his conviction, which he is currently imprisoned for. His conviction includes crimes such as marrying an underage women in 1994 which predate the release of these collaborative albums. Jay Z was in fact cricisized Damon Dash, who he co-founded Roc-A-Fella records with, for knowing releasing collaborative albums with a pedophile. https://www.complex.com/music/a/brad-callas/dame-dash-jay-z-made-albums-r-kelly-after-abused-aaliyah None of these are my conclusion. Neither the covicition which details his crimes predating the release of those albums nor the opinions of other notable individuals cricisizing him for working with a known pedophile at the time. Instantwatym (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Kelly's description in old albums seems a little too on the nose... I don't think its due. As for Jay-Z if there are reliable sources covering the allegations then per NPOV we likely should be too, the key is to present them as allegations and not facts. The lead is a bit much though and I would want a higher tier of sources than are currently being used. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other events in R Kelly's sorry life are irrelevant to the article subject, and suggestive of some kind of knowledge or collusion on the part of the article subject. Unless there are really good sources that can be cited that suggest this, it does not belong in other BLP articles. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Escape Orbit here. Foregrounding R Kelly's crimes in the lead of the Jay Z article seems like a bad idea – we certainly don't want to suggest any kind of connection between Jay Z and R Kelly's crimes unless this is thoroughly supported by reliable sources Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed content restoration at Karen Black, Gail Brown, Hunter Carson, Theodore McKeldin

Having unblocked the OP only this morning, I have now indeffed them again for clear failure to understand the concept that they should be staying well away from all of these articles. Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Only two of these four pages pertain to living persons, but it's all interconnected.

I suggest restoring the content that can be found in these diff's at Karen Black, Gail Brown, Hunter Carson and Theodore McKeldin. Very basic, standard content that you would naturally expect to be included. But it seems that a certain somebody is recklessly determined to suppress it,[15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] which is so bizarre to me.

My stance is that the content never had any reason to be removed in the first place. On February 10, I tried to start a discussion at Black's talk page, but couldn't get any editors to participate. I also brought it up at the Administrators' Noticeboard, again getting absolutely nowhere. Attempts to get the conversation going were shut down before any kind of resolution could be reached.

Your guess is as good as mine why 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B / 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B8A2:D7CA:55DA:3AEE / 80.136.196.48 repeatedly blanks basic content and keeps putting a COI (conflict of interest) tag on the pages. Talk about chaos. There is no conflict of interest (the IP-switching editor seems to be suggesting this family is so irrelevant, that anyone who makes a substantial contribution to their pages must have a "close connection"). As a result of the inexplicable content wipeouts and meritless COI tags, each page is now incomprehensible and dishonors its subject. The pages were fine until the multi-IP editor came along and started making trouble.

This is an open-and-shut matter. Please remove the unwarranted COI tags and restore the content; then add protection and assign watchdogs to the four pages to prevent this madness from reoccurring. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 01:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: Is the above compatible with your comment at User talk:Deep Purple 2013#Unblock discussion? Johnuniq (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Blocked. Black Kite (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I removed one duplicate post at WP:COIN and hatted a duplicate discussion at WP:FTN and pointed anyone interested to this page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:18, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reposting from WP:FTN.

My guess may be good, at least: it probably has to do with the reasons in the edit summaries they're providing, specifically the inclusion of the names of non-notable living persons in articles, which is not generally allowed—part of your larger pattern of behavior that does seem reflective of a conflict of interest. I recommend you read the linked policy pages. Remsense诉 01:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a page on Wiki that specifically excludes the names of its subject's siblings and children. That's basic information. Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See: WP:BLPNAME. We try to protect the rights of private individuals to keep their privacy. We have no right to invade in theirs, and that includes brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, and especially children who do not even have the ability to give informed consent. Wikipedia takes this very seriously, because not everybody wants to be famous or have their name in an article. The other reason is, to most readers, a name without an article to link it to is just a faceless word, void of form and substance, thus is meaningless. In other words, to the average reader, nobody cares, but to the people being named, it may well be a very big deal, and we need to err on the side of caution. Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen thousands and thousands. Remsense诉 01:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black's daughter acted in a movie with her, and Black's nephew (who is deceased) twice ran for public office. So they're both public figures and WP:BLPNAME does not apply to them. The only "non-notable" excluded individuals left in the conversation are her brother Peter (who I think warrants a mention on both of his sisters' pages) and the children of Gail (who I think warrants a mention on her page). Deep Purple 2013 (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latter do not, per the linked policy. Remsense诉 01:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

RfC about claimed statement at Julian Assange

An RfC at the above article is about whether a claim made by two journalists about something ostensibly said by the subject at a private dinner, but denied by others present, is appropriate for the subject's biography. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual misconduct allegations against Gabriel Matzneff

Gabriel Matzneff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Lubiesque (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This article seems to be using a lot of questionable sources, including youtube videos, to make statements relating to criminal sexual misconduct, especially in this section. I read some of the sources and a lot of them don't match the claims made in the article, which also reads very taboid-ish in the parts relating to criminal accusations. The page also explicitly and sometimes implicitly states that Matzneff has engaged in acts that he has never been actually convicted for in court, instead of portraying them as criminal accusations (which is what most of the sources do).

I've removed some of the bad stuff early today, but a person who has been editing this page for 4 years now reinstated everything (again, using youtube as a source). One of the sources is also linking to French wikipedia for some reason. I want to see what more experienced people think about this. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 21:46, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing The New York Times, The Guardian, The New Statesman, L'Express, Le Figaro, Le Monde, and pages 84 to 87 of a history book by Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu, professor of modern history at UVSQ, and published by Fayard (ISBN 9782213676340), as sources being cited for what you removed in Special:Diff/1209446575.
The New Statesman piece, just for starters, directly discusses "The treatment accorded Denise Bombardier, a Canadian journalist who during a 1990 prime-time television roundtable dared to confront the author over his behaviour, as well as criticise the literary quality of one of his books". Yet you removed all mention of the confrontation with Denise Bombardier from the article. The Ambroise-Rendu book seems to mention this person a lot, according to its index.
I think that you are not in the right, here, and should actually be reading some of these sources.
Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources are not being used to make this statement, this youtube video is being used as an inline reference to do so. I also could find no confirmation that Matzneff was an "admitted" [redacted] in those guardian sources. And the article continues to explicitly and implicitly say that things that this man has not been convicted for in court actually happened, I don't think it was wrong to remove that and leave out only what he himself wrote and let the facts speak for themselves. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:47, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. The YouTube video is very obviously a mis-placed "here's the TV programme" footnote, because people get citations and footnotes mixed up. The New Statesman adequately sources a confrontation with Denise Bombardier, and if you had actually read the sources you could have simply fixed the conflation of footnote and source by attaching a source that was already in the article to the text. Instead you come here with a false characterization of what you have removed being sourced to YouTube and the French Wikipedia when it is blatantly obvious that it has 6 mainstream news services in 3 countries being cited, as well as Anne-Claude Ambroise-Rendu's book. You are not in the right, here. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the statement saying that Matzneff was an "admitted" something and the account put it back there without even acknowledging the problem. Bolt and Thunder (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What does "C'était même l'objet d'un de ses livres, «Les Moins de seize ans», paru une première fois en 1975." tell you? That's Le Parisien. You just aren't reading the sources. Uncle G (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Willis, TMZ

There is a discussion at RSN that may be of interest to watchers of this board, concerning TMZ-based information in a BLP. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TMZ, among other sources reporting the same information. BD2412 T 01:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Navalny; Amnesty International

Editor has been seemingly targeting all information that they clearly don't want to be shown and I can see it's been occurring for years.[30][31] [32][33][34] They know the information is correct yet they use flimsy reasoning to remove it. Today I had earlier added in this edit; (that Navalny refused to renounce his past controversial nationalistic videos (that's the focus) despite being asked to in numerous interviews. And that instead he repeatedly stated he holds no regrets in making those videos.[35][36] This is vital context to the topic and wasn't present before, but was quickly removed by them completely.[37] They are claiming they are just making it clearer in the edit description. But actually they are just really omitting all the info I added in completely. I got no interest in an edit war over something that should not be removed for mere political reasons. And looking at the guys long term past conduct since 2021 in seemingly doing the same back and forth edit warring with Mhorg. [38][39] and using bad arguments against multiple others in a recent thread that I made.[40] I really don't think it's possible to reason with them and why I request assistance to address them, or to add in my edit as I think such info obviously cannot be removed and it's disruptive to keep censoring that. 49.180.164.128 (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayes Barnard

There is a discussion going on now at Talk:Hayes Barnard#Time magazine/GoodLeap about the appropriateness of a particular sentence, and whether it violates WP:COATRACK and other Wikipedia best practices for BLPs, which could benefit from input from additional editors. If anyone is so inclined to take a look and chime in, it would be much appreciated. JesseGoodLeap (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards