Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Only in death (talk | contribs) at 13:03, 29 May 2024 (→Patricia Marroquin Norby). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

    Additional notes:



    Michael D. Aeschliman

    The subject of this article is persistently being misrepresented by 174.208.235.142 as a "Teacher, Innkeeper and B&B owner", without any valid supporting citations. 174.208.235.142 adds statements about Aeschliman's alleged occupation and about how he inherited certain buildings, again without providing evidence.

    The obvious purpose is to mischaracterise Aeschliman. In fact, as all the evidence shows, the subject of the article is an eminent, well-known university professor, writer, scholar and literary critic.

    The subject's biography section has also been deleted by 174.208.235.142 without good reason.

    Moreover, 174.208.235.142 has gratuitously attached warnings to the article about a "major contributor" having a "close connection" with the subject, and that some of the article's sources may not be reliable. No evidence of this has been provided on the article's "Talk" page. There is a fair range of contributors to the article; its citations are numerous and, as far as one can tell, legitimate.

    There is no evidence of serious, bona fide editing by 174.208.235.142. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that this is a case of vandalism by 174.208.235.142, seeking to ridicule Aeschliman, possibly for personal or ideological reasons.

    Please take measures to prevent this recurrent behaviour by 174.208.235.142.

    Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamara Santerra (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Scintillating edit history there. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove for more. 'S all from me for now. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The following account appears to be sock-puppets and should be added to the investigation:
    A. Roderick-Grove
    Coriakin the Wise
    Tamara Santerra  
    Lexical Paws
    WoollyBear
    Chuzzlewit23
    Tiltonalum
    There could be more. 174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tamara Santerra (who left the above comment but didn't sign it) is almost certainly the biographical subject and a Sockpuppet account. The notability of Michael D. Aeschliman is questionable. Many references go to blank pages or dead links and appear to be almost entirely authored by sock-puppet accounts (several of which have already been cited for COI issues) and connected contributors listed on the subject's talk page. The sources either don't cite the subject or don't say what's claimed in the article. The subject appears to have authored a few introductions to obscure and unknown works by other authors, for which there are no reliable sources. In terms of the subject's work as an innkeeper (which might be notable), there are references that are easy to find online.[1] [2] [3] 174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you've found blank refs, first consult an internet archive website or two. If no good archive, or if the archived version is clearly not a WP:RS, then remove if they fail WP:V. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've stricken the sockupppet OP. The socks edited living academics' articles. Any additional eyes to review and revert the socks' edit histories would be greatly helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The socks created Conrad Hughes – are either Conrad or Michael's articles encyclopedic? I think they don't look it, and I know this isn't AfD. But both look like a BLP sock turd to me. Anyone here into academiacs have an opinion? JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If sock-puppets and non-existent or unreliable citations are necessary to establish the pages, then the subjects, by definition, are not notable. 174.197.71.135 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hughes page was created shortly after the two subjects participated in a symposium together. Like Aeschliman, there do not appear to be any reliable secondary sources for Hughes. Both pages reply on the same group of socks. 174.197.71.135 (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great edits on those articles. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Meldman

    Hi - I'm looking for help updating the Michael Meldman article. Mr. Meldman is now the Founder and Chairman (not CEO) as Brett White was appointed CEO in early 2022. Also the article repeatedly refers to "Casamigos tequila" but the company name is "Casamigos Tequila" (upper case "T"). Finally, based on the IRS 990 forms the Discovery Land Foundation has contributed over $30 Million since 2007, which may be material to that section of the article.

    Disclosure - I am a paid contractor for the Discovery Land Company, and would greatly appreciate any help in getting the article updated. If there is another forum or format that would work better, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19thholeEditor (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings. 1) businesswire is not a reliable third-party source as to BLP information, however I'm willing to remove "CEO" as unreffed. 2) The capital T refers to a byname but not a registered name apparently. The company article includes the T in its lede. But do you have a good source other than yourself for that? 3) Nobody cares about contributions that aren't noteworthy as shown by reliable third-party sources. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For more on caps and names, see WP:MOS. Or tell your client to register a T name and see what someone else here thinks of it. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Scoot Henderson

    The sentence "Henderson has achieved two of the three worst single-game plus-minus totals (-56 & -58) in NBA history." is very negative but I think it would be appropriate to add it to the WP:LEAD of this WP:BLP. It should be noted that this statistic has only been fully tracked since 1996, so maybe the phrase NBA history should be tweaked. Advice?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Currently the body of the article doesn't even say that. And judging by the cited source it would be at best misleading: Henderson's -56 is not outright the third-worst plus-minus total in NBA history; it is matched by Miles Bridges. So he really has two out of the four worst. I don't know enough about basketball to have an opinion on whether this is an important statistic to include in the lead, but if you do, I suggest you phrase it as something like "In March 2024, Henderson broke the record for the lowest single-game plus-minus total in NBA history". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also matched by Jeremiah Robinson-Earl according to Basketnews.com (Not related to Basket News, aka Basketnews.net).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do the weight of the sources justify its inclusion in the lead or do you just think it's important? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)]][reply]
    Reviewing the sources, Yardbarker and Defector Media, I'm not sure if these sports blog support inclusion in the article much less the lead. Where is the mention in mainstream sports sites like ESPN and SI or newspapers? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • plus-minus is an unusual statistic for basketball. In other sports (especially hockey) it is a widely respected statistic. For basketball it is an important enough statistic that it became a part of official box scores in 2007. However, for most basketball experts, adjusted plus-minus statistics like real plus-minus, box plus-minus or estimated plus-minus are considered more indicative of individual performance. However, raw plus-minus is the one in box scores. The statistic does not get a lot of press, so his record is not covered in mainstream sports sites. Other less important sports sites cover these stories such as ClutchPoints does here, where they are kind enough to note that "single game plus-minus is not indicative of a player's talent level or their impact on the floor for the long-term". NBC Sports rushed the story without the correct numbers. Above I mentioned Basketnews.com.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. the reason that other forms of plus-minus are viewed as better is that they isolate the player from other players that he often plays with. Draymond Green set the single-season all-time record in a season where Steph Curry and Klay Thompson also had among the all time best season totals. Plus-minus evaluates scoring differential at times when you are playing, but does not account for the fact that often times the certain players often play with other players. E.g., starters often play together so their own plus-minus might actually reflect the abilities of other starters as much as their own. However, no one really makes this point about other statistics. No one says a guy who gets a lot of assists did so because he had a lot of great shooters and we should adjust his stats or a great shooter got a lot of points because he had a great point guard (e.g. John Stockton and Karl Malone). Food for thought.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the statistics. However, is it WP:DUE to report? The sources are not significant. NBC Sports presented it as a roto note while basketnews is a little known site out of Lithuania. Clutchpoint is a clickbait sports site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't each of those count as an WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes for NBC Sports, but you also have to consider the WP:WEIGHT of what is presented. Clutchpoints is not RS while basketnews's reliablity is unknown but its significance is little. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the original sources Yardbarker and Defector Media?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I already mentioned they were sports blogs. Also.[4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A related guideline is MOS:BLPLEAD:

    The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person

    Generally single-game stats don't define a player, short of record that you'd reasonably expect to see in one's obituary, like Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. Moreover, +/- is a recent advanced statistic for the NBA. And this hasn't even touched on that this is a negative portrayal of Henderson. —Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What about its removal entirely from the article?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While it was on NBCSports, it was from their fantasy pages. Im ok if its not mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Let me clarify here. Above we are discussing two events.

    Henderson posted a -56 on January 11 (a 3-way tie for 2nd worst all-time at the time)
    1. https://defector.com/the-nba-is-the-best-at-showing-us-the-worst
    2. https://clutchpoints.com/blazers-news-the-mind-blowing-scoot-henderson-stat-from-62-point-loss-to-thunder
    3. https://basketnews.com/news-200121-scoot-henderson-ties-for-second-worst-plusminus-all-time-vs-thunder.html
    Henderson posted a -58 on March 29 (a new all-time record)
    1. https://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/blazers_rookie_sets_hideous_record_in_blowout_loss/s1_13132_40174214
    2. https://www.nbcsports.com/fantasy/basketball/player-news?playerNewsId=0000018e-8d96-d14e-a9be-cf966edc0000 (wrong number -55 in article)
    • I am hearing that current sourcing may not support inclusion. I am digging further into this issue. Here is what I have found. Personally, I consider SB Nation to be a very good source. I use it a lot often on a standalone basis as being sufficient without any other support. They cover the March game twice at least in the following stories [6] (also mentions the January game but incorrectly points to -57) and [7] (also discusses a derivative stat called cumulative plus/minus). I don't use Sportsnet a lot but they also mention the March fiasco [8]. I have never heard of Givemesport.com which notes that he is the only player with two game of -55 or worse in this, but they may very well be a WP:RS. Yahoo! Sports mentions the March game at [9]. I think Sportando.basketball is regarded as a RS and they mention the March event at [10]
    • I don't usually include foreign language sources, but Henderson's P/M is an international story. The January event was covered in German. The March event was covered in Italian.
    • There were also a bunch of social media mentions and memes of the stories Jan at [11] and March at [12], [13] and [14].
    • I think if I kept digging I could find more sources as well-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review WP:SOURCES and WP:RSOPINION and explain why you believe those SB Nation articles are appropriate to establish facts and WEIGHT when they are littered with opinions and words like "ignominious", "underwhelmed", and "stupendous". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Although SB Nation is a publisher of articles that might be classified as blogs, it has been a great basketball and football source for reliable facts for years for me. I have never really given much thought to the official policy guidelines. Their articles often have lots of facts that end up checking out. As a publisher, I find them to be among those "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Their articles seem to be prominent in search results, which likely speaks toward their reliability. A WP world in which they are not a valid WP:RS would surely be a world in which the quality of my articles is reduced because they often have the best coverage of certain types of fact. The consideration at issue here is an example of them having the best coverage of a fact.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Their articles seem to be prominent in search results, which likely speaks toward their reliability. Tony, come on. Wikipedia's articles are prominent in search results, and they certainly aren't reliable sources. "Prominent in search results" is a very bad proxy for reliability, and you have been on Wikipedia for long enough that you should be well aware of that fact. It increasingly sounds as though you have decided what you want the lead of Scoot Henderson to say and are just looking for sources which justifies you in doing the thing you have already decided you want, which is precisely the opposite of how we should be writing articles on Wikipedia, especially ones about living people. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Typically, when we have a questionable topic the instruction is to identify credible sources. I've been rying to say what sources say not what I want. User:Caeciliusinhorto, you seem to be making your determination of whether it is a reliable source based on whether I can describe it as one. I rely heavily on WP:RSN. Whether a source is an RS is not in my expertise. SB Nation seems to have the traditional editorial process for each franchise. What I mean by prominent in search results is that many people seem to regard them as credible. The fact that I don't know whether something is an RS is not a statement that it is not. Clearly, ranking in search results is not how we determine reliability/verifiability. We evaluate the editorial rigor and the credibility of the source. The point is not whether I can explain why I view SB Nation as an RS. The issue is whether they are one. You should stop trying to point out whether I have explained it and look to whether they are an RS, which has never been a problem in past use. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410#SB_Nation-staffed_sports_editorial_blogs and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285#Is_it_appropriate_to_use_SBNation_as_a_reference? seem to be indeterminate on the issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys keep picking off sources as if they are in isolation. Here is what we have:
    1. January 11 -56: Defector Media ([15]), ClutchPoints ([16]), Basketnews.com ([17]), Yardbarker ([18]), Sportsnet ([19]), SB Nation ([20], mentions -57), Sportando.basketball ([21]), Givemesport.com ([22]), German language spox.com/de ([23]), Italian language basketuniverso.it ([24])
    2. March 29 -58: Yardbarker ([25]), NBC Sports ([26], mentions -55), Sportsnet ([27]), SB Nation ([28]), SB Nation ([29]), Yahoo! Sports ([30]), Sportando.basketball ([31]), Givemesport.com ([32]), Italian language basketuniverso.it ([33])-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sportsnet is a WP:RSOPINION editorial article. Yahoo Sports is dependent on who they syndicate from. In that case it shows Rookie Wire which is part of USA Today so that should be okay. Givemesports is a sports tabloid. Don't know anything about Sportsnando, and that is a problem for WP:WEIGHT. It's not clear if they take user submissions for articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do often rely on USA Today.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't follow much sports, and definitely not basketball, so I haven't really followed this discussion very much, but since it's still going on I decided to take a deeper look. I had to go do some serious research to find out what the hell plus/minus means, because it sounds so self-contradicting. In math, plus and minus are opposites and therefore cancel each other out, so it comes off to an outsider like me as gibberish. The article should not be written for just sports fans, so if included then we should explain what it means for the average reader.

    But is it important? Simply relying on the number of sources for due weight can often come off as clumsy and lead to poor understanding for the reader. Quite often, a little editorial judgment needs to come into play when writing an article. Certain information is essential for the reader to understand a subject and other information is often mere trivia, and there's an entire spectrum in between. Due weight is more helpful for weeding out the good trivia from the bad, but the essentials are essential no matter what. For example, in an article about energy it's essential to explain force and work, because one cannot exist without the other two, but it's a far more trivial detail to include that energy is used to ride a bicycle. Summarizing something --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling it down to the essentials.

    So, in researching just how important a plus/minus stat is, I found this source from ESPN which seems to explain it rather well. "Plus/minus looks at a team's point differential when a player is on the floor compared with when he's not. In theory, this is a clever way to measure not just a player's scoring but something media types love: the so-called intangibles.... So what's the issue? Well, a player's plus/minus score bounces around a lot from night to night, so you can't use it to evaluate a guy after just a few appearances. "You look at a partial season of plus/minus and you can't tell if a guy is Patrick Ewing or Keith Bogans," says one NBA GM. The stat is hugely influenced by other players on the court too. Chris Bosh plays with two future Hall of Famers, so his plus/minus looks great. John Wall's Wizards routinely get crushed, so his looks awful."

    From that source, it seems the stat is rather meaningless when talking about an individual player over a single game, because it relies just as much on the team's performance as it does the player's. Where it becomes valuable is when players are evaluated against each other over an entire season; to determine which players work best when paired with other players. On its own, however, it's something the media types love because it gives something to cheer or boo about but in reality doesn't tell much about an individual player, especially over a single game, so it can also be rather misleading to those who don't know better.

    Should it be in the article? Probably, but does that mean it should be in the lede? The lede should be a summary of the body, just touching on all the most important aspects of the subject. It's a summary of a summary. So, before even considering whether it should be in the lede, I would want to see it in the body first. From there it's fairly easy to determine, just by how prominently it stands out in the body, if it is important enough to summarize in the lede. Anyhow, that's the way I'd approach it, so I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, if the blogs have minimal editorial oversight, at best it is WP:RSOPINION and at worst disqualified WP:BLPSPS (requires full editorial control). In reviewing his articles, it's clear he's offering his opinions on all sorts of basketball matters. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a spurious claim. If anything, SB Nation has been deemed SPS and should not be used anywhere unless the author is an established expert, and even then should only be cited on non-BLP pages. JoelleJay (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elizabeth Salmón

    I have raised an RFC regarding a BLP issue on Elizabeth Salmón. More information can be found on the talk page, but the executive summary is that it appears the subject would like her birth year removed from the article, citing privacy as a concern. This information is sourced at the UN. I do not think this is a BLP issue, but I am not an expert. Your comments would be welcome. Eniagrom (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please let everyone here know if either the IP or the SPA announce they're (editing for or on behalf of) the subject. That changes a gear. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did comment on sourcing at the talk page; it's a primary source containing a SPS. If that source is removed, there's not much to hang an encyclopedic biography on. What are your impressions as to this article's sourcing? JFHJr (㊟) 04:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi sorry for the delay in replying here, I didn't see this comment until recently. Thanks for looking into it. Right now the sourcing is pretty weak, but I think that's mostly because it's a stub. I see that another admin mentioned it probably failed WP:GNG in its current form and that you nominated it for deletion on the same grounds -- let's see how the AfD process plays out. My general feeling on these UN articles (I've created a few of them) is that they usually start out pretty bare-bones precisely because most of the notability comes from the position, and they have to have it a while before the WP:RS catches up. But generally they do. An example might be David Kaye (academic) which I created when he was nominated for the position was a really bare-bones article, but it's now quite fleshed out. Of course, it's been 10 years. But, no deadline, etc. Eniagrom (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've nominated this article for deletion. See: WP:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Salmón JFHJr (㊟) 22:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bagrat Galstanyan

    Hello. There is an ongoing disruption in Bagrat Galstanyan article who is a living person, a serious allegation was added about him on 11 May [37], then restored repeatedly by the user with no consensus. This despite my attempts to demonstrate that the allegation is in clear conflict with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG. The source in question for this serious claim is a newspaper PDF page of “The Armenian Mirror-Spectator” from 2013 [38]. This source is very little known, no actual established reliable sources confirmed this claim in 2013, and as I said the original source from 2013 isn't an established reliable source considering also the severe allegation it's making. All of this is in clear conflict with Wikipedia policies of WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONUS. I think the noticeboard should be aware of the situation in the article and the libelous information should be removed until it is shown to be substantiated by a number of high quality sources, which is far from the case at the moment. AntEgo (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reviewing the Armenian Mirror Spectator pdf, the source seems reliable. However, the editors acknowledged that the article is just a republication of a statement of the accusers. That means there's no independent fact checking. I don't know anything about the reliability of the second source, civic.am but it reports or relies on the original AMS article and seems to be an editorial or opinion column in itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morbidthoughts "However, the editors acknowledged that the article is just a republication of a statement of the accusers. That means there's no independent fact checking." – Yes, you're right, this is one of the reasons why the accusation shouldn't be in a living person's wiki article, this allegation cannot be verified factually, it's just an uncorroborated accusation that no independent credible source confirms. Even more reason why it shouldn't be in a WP:BLP article, also in breach of WP:REDFLAG and WP:LIBEL which says to delete libelous material if it's been identified.
    And if you look at the article, even more diabolical claims are being added based on that one 2013 newspaper [39], these are seriously concerning for a WP:BLP article: if we gave every unfounded accusation light on Wikipedia especially on living person articles, then Wikipedia is not Wikipedia anymore, that's why I believe we have many policies and specifically strict ones on living persons. The second source as you noted is an opinion piece and an unknown news website, this website might be government affiliated but I can't verify because it doesn't even have an "About Us" page. It basis the opinion piece on the same 2013 newspaper's unproven accusations.
    In conclusion, the 2013 newspaper's serious accusations are not collaborated or fact-checked by independent reliable sources, therefore it's libelous and violates several wiki policies and should not be in an article about a living person. AntEgo (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you should be careful throwing around words like libel, diabolical, unfounded, etc... It makes you come off as very emotionally invested in all of this, which in itself raises some red flags. That said, Morbidthoughts appears to be agreeing with you, so no need to argue with him.
    I agree as well. This is all based on a statement by the church and handed out to its parishioners. There's no editorial oversite or fact checking, and, while the newspaper itself may be reliable, they take no ownership of the info and clearly say it's just the church's unedited rebuttal.
    That means you have a green light to go ahead and remove the info from the article. Calmly and stoically explain to the user that they need very good sources, what's wrong with these sources, give them a link to this discussion, and if it continues report them at WP:ANI for repeatedly ignoring BLP policy after they've been warned sufficiently. Zaereth (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zaereth Thanks for your input. FYI, I do agree with Morbidthoughts and yourself, just tried to lay out my thoughts for last time in the previous comment and update what happened in the article, sorry if it came off as emotional but maybe that's because I got tired of users ignoring core wiki policies in the article and even further expanding based on that one 2013 newspaper claims that as you noted, isn't fact-checked, isn't collaborated by independent credible sources, and is just unfounded accusation to a living person which as far as I know and you also confirmed, are strictly not tolerated on Wikipedia. I will remove the section, and will link this discussion in my edit summary and will also restate the policies that are being violated in the summary. AntEgo (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The entire article is built around a single primary source... and his college thesis. By BLP rules it should not have been made at all. There were literally no inline citations before I started making edits. You're trying to remove one of the few times this guy has been mentioned in the media before leading protests to topple the Armenian government. If we were following wikipedia's rules than the article should be put up for deletion entirely. Scu ba (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you pushing for this to be included when his recent political dissidence is not mentioned in the article?[40] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why can't we just omit the opinion part, like I had, and just leave in "he was criticized" and then report on the things that actually happened and appear in more than one source? Scu ba (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you should not restore disputed information that is still under discussion. Due to the sensitive nature of BLP articles and it's potential to cause very real harm to living people, we need to be extremely careful and always err on the side of caution, so a clear consensus needs to be achieved 'before the material is restored, not the other way around. This is not just a suggestion but a very clear part of the policy. See: WP:BLPRESTORE. In other words, it's a very bad thing to do and would not look good for you if this is brought before ANI.
    We rely on secondary sources for any contentious information, not primary sources like the letter from the church. We need a source that has done their own investigation of the facts and selected opinions they feel is relevant, rather than cherrypicking our own. Taking information directly from a primary source is doing the job of of a newspaper reporter instead of an encyclopedic researcher, and we're not reporters. See: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:No original research. Aside from protecting our subjects from unnecessary harm, this also protects us from any possible legal repercussions. Secondary sources take all legal liability for the info they report on, and that shields us from any liability, because we are trusting them to stay within the lines, and they have staffs of lawyers to fight for them and their reporters. When we do the job of a reporter, we not only open up Wikipedia to any liability, but also to any editors who added the information. Yes, you may end up in court, and you can bet Wikipedia isn't going to cover your lawyer's expenses like a newspaper would. That's not a legal threat, but a reminder that it is a very real possibility in today's sue-happy world. These policies exist to protect everybody, including our editors.
    Personally, I don't have time right now to look into any other sources you may have added, but I'd suggest abiding by policy and removing it until consensus is achieved here one way or another, because so far the sources that were examined by us BLPN regulars did not come near to cutting the muster. I'll have more time to look into this further in the next day or so. If, on the other hand you think the subject is not notable and does not pass WP:General notability guidelines, then that may be so, but it's an entirely different matter, in which case you can simply nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only problem is that his effort to mortgage off a church is public record. Scu ba (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't use public records as sources. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need very reliable, WP:Secondary sources. And if he did anything illegal, then WP:BLPCRIME may also come into play, in which case he'd need to be convicted in a court of law before we could include it. We take WP:BLP policy very seriously, so I'd suggest reading it and understanding it before doing any edits to articles about living people. Zaereth (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zaereth Unfortunately Scuba restored their edit again, this time reverting user @Russ Woodroofe [41], [42]. Scuba supposedly added new sources, but completely ignored your comment about the importance of very reliable secondary sources. If you look at their added sources, in the first diff, they revert and restore the PDF 2013 newspaper that we discussed already (nothing new), and they cite this unknown website as source which is an opinion piece, link.
    In their second diff, Scuba supposedly adds "more" sources which are the following: a primary source of the Canada church with no criticism of Galsytanyan (doesn't even mention his name) [43], and an additional source which is literally the same Mirror-Spectator but a different article [44], and this one doesn't mention any sort of criticism of Galstanyan either even tho it's cited as such in Scuba's edit. Scuba's basically claiming "more" sources which in reality are low-quality and even primary / opinion pieces in a BLP article they have been cautioned about several times already, and most importantly, these "more" sources don't even support Scuba's restored “criticisms” text. How is this type of behavior acceptable and could an administrator take a look at this already? AntEgo (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't a great place for discussing editor behavior, and most of the regulars here aren't admins. This board is for discussing BLP policy. Unfortunately, I am rather busy in real life and don't have time to go through all the sources right now. If an editor is behaving badly, then the place to report it would be WP:ANI, because that's where all the admins hang out. Just be sure you've tried every other option first and go there with "clean hands", or it could turn around and bite you. Zaereth (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AntEgo Bizzare that an account without a page (with less than 500 edits) is trying to lecture me about editor behavior, you're the one citing a "consensus" on the BLP talk page, meanwhile, this conversation is STILL OPEN and NOT CLOSED. You're trying to jump the gun here. Again, him being VOTED OUT OF BEING PRIMATE is a real thing that happened, if you want to get admins involved go ahead, but your hands aren't clean here either. Scu ba (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m citing consensus because in case you’re not aware, you’ve been repeatedly editing against the current BLP consensus, you literally don’t have consensus when in fact you should have a definite one especially in strict cases like WP:BLP and the type of information you're adding. And I’ve been here longer than you and may have been lurking/reading Wikipedia longer too, so please avoid the hyperbolic language. What’s the issue here is that you’ve been asked by several users to only cite very good credible sources especially in a strict WP:BLP topic and considering the “criticisms” controversial info you keep restoring, and you continue to add low quality sources as I’ve shown in my comment above. This is a questionable behavior at the very least, and you shouldn’t act like this considering what several users commented here or reverted you in the article. AntEgo (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Under WP:BLPUNDEL, these disputed assertion should not be reinstated until consensus is achieved to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Uebert Angel

    Please take a look at this edit request, I have requested some edits to the article because it seems like there are no reliable sources that support the claims, on the contrary it's supported by an unreliable source, and the Gistmania one which appears as a spam source per this spam report. Editor ZionniThePeruser accepted the edit request but LocomotiveEngine reverted the edits more than one time without any valid reason. It seems like LocomotiveEngine did the same before with spam links, please take a look at his edit here and unexplained content removal like this edit.

    So, can you please handle the edit request, stop the edit warring between ZionniThePeruser and LocomotiveEngine, and notify LocomotiveEngine not to revert it again if I'm not mistaken? -- Exposstage (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the gistmania citation, but not the content because it is still apparently supported by another citation. The next easiest answer: a reasonable editor could be satisfied that template removal was appropriate because the issues had apparently been addressed. Removing a ref to aircargonews implies the editor did not see it as a fit WP:RS for a BLP. But no edit summary means you can only ask the editor for clarification. Otherwise, LocomotiveEngine appears to be addressing WP:POV issues which appear in versions preferred by ZionniThePeruser. If more reliable source discussion might be the key here, a better forum might be WP:RSN. There may be folks there inclined to scrub the article to remove non-RS. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed and removed the remaining source as well, because it simply repeated the allegation without attribution (and without citation to the actual alleged list), and it was supposed to support wikivoice stating it as fact. Both editors are POVing. JFHJr (㊟) 02:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pinging me, but I already reverted the edit before I read the message. But your edit summary is quite misleading as you stated that "rm supporting cite to gistmania: not WP:RS for a BLP". You stated that you were removing only the unreliable source without touching the controversial line but you removed the same controversial line along with the source. I invite other "reasonable" editors since I am unreasonable according to your words. The article has been under sustained attack to remove anything they perceive as negative in the page LocomotiveEngine (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made two edits (with two different summaries) and left two different comments here. (See one, then two an hour later) Nothing I said was misleading. Nor did I leave you a contrary message on your talkpage, as your edit summary appears to falsely state. At no point did I imply you were not reasonable; I think you've misread several things. But I do agree input from more editors would be helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For everyone's reference, the two citations I removed were to Gistmania and Zimbo, which were being used to state the unattributed reports as facts in wikivoice. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you JFHJr for your comment and for your good efforts here!
    There's another piece in the article that is related to the Fake Degrees part, i have included it on my edit request in the talk page earlier but likely got forgotten due to the multiple editing versions on the article, In 2013 his name was included on a list of people who bought fake degrees from an online degree mill. It's unsourced as well and included in the very end of the lead section. Could you please remove it as well? Best. Exposstage (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. JFHJr (㊟) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! Do you think the ZimEye.net will be considered a reliable source? ZimEye doesn't have its own Wikipedia page but noticed that it was used in several articles. I don't want to bother you and ask your help to edit the article again, and intend to submit an edit request on the TP but wanted to know your thoughts. Sincerely -- Exposstage (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:RSN might be a better place to ask reliable source questions. It's easier to apply BLP policies once a threshold determination can be made as to particular sources. To me, ZimEye looks like a political tabloid whose publications are probably unreliable as to BLP content. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to their 'about' page, "ZimEye is a spread out news network" and "the various journalists are the individual publishers". This makes me question their level of editorial control, and suspect that they are not appropriate for BLP content at least. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed zimeye. I still hope OP reaches out to RSN. There's a lot of similar in this article to wade through. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My BLP edits to the article are being characterized by LocomotiveEngine as vandalism in edit summaries. Any additional eyes and hands would be helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @LocomotiveEngine: could you please explain here about why you think the sources you restored are WP:BLP and WP:RS compliant, and perhaps how my BLP edits constitute vandalism, as you claimed in your edit summary? Neither I nor Caeciliusinhorto find zimeye to be reliable enough for WP:BLP claims. Especially critical or controversial ones. Implied, Exposstage probably doesn't find them reliable either (hence all the BLPNing). This is a WP:CONSENSUS based process, so I'd like to get the rationale behind your edits and your edit summaries. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Gadd date of birth

    I am trying to gain consensus on how to best handle the date of birth in the "Richard Gadd" article. There are multiple sources stating different years, and there were frequent edits to the year of birth until yesterday, when I added hidden text asking that it not be changed until editors checked the talk page. On the talk page, I discussed a number of different sources and their reliability, none of which were "generally reliable" per the perennial sources noticeboard. All of them are in agreement that his month and day of birth are May 11, but they do not agree on the year (1989 or 1990). Eventually, since all the sources were in agreement that the year was either 1989 or 1990, I added this to the article, especially considering the WP:DOB policy. I was doing more research, and I was able to eventually find a "generally reliable source" (The Independent) that gave his age at the time of the interview (30 in October 2019), but no day or month of birth. Usually something like "Template:Birth based on age as of date" in a case like this, but there are so many different sources debating his year that I feel this case is unique. It still leaves the WP:DOB issue unresolved, as does whether WP:CALC with a large number of semi-reliable sources that agree on birth day and month, with one "generally reliable" source that gives an age, can be used to deduce a birth date of May 11, 1989. This page is currently a top 20 article and BLP and so far no one has added to the discussion on the talk page I started. If you are interested, please contribute at: Talk:Richard Gadd#Date of Birth again. Thanks Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Since we can't nail down a year, and since this is a living person, how about we leave it out altogether? How does having a fuzzy range for a DOB add value to this article? Living people can clear this up themselves, if they want to, or they can have us wait for a reliable source or an obituary. There are no deadlines here, in any sense. JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pornnappan Pornpenpipat

    IP editor changed the birth year from 1997 to 1995. I'm not sure if this source consider to be reliable? But most of sources that she is born in 1997. - Jjpachano (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that source has all the hallmarks of a non-reliable source. It's a gossip article. I didn't look into any other pages on the website, though. For more opinions, re-post at WP:RSN. I think content based on this source should be removed along with the source itself. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Debbie Currie

    Could someone familiar with WP:BLP policy, along with WP:N and probably WP:NOT, please take a look at the Debbie Currie article? It seems problematic to me for multiple reasons that I hope should be self-evident, but due to external factors I'm reluctant to try to deal with it myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Andy! I didn't aim for the jugular, but I used scalpel and some sutures. At least two other editors appear to have worked on this since your post. Commenting content-wise, I truly value your contributions here, and I hope you'll consider making any changes on the article or comments here that you think are helpful. If you'd like to discuss the value of any remaining sources/content without characterizing any editors, proponents even of nonsense, or their behavior, I would enjoy seeing your work or words. I'm all ears (eyes). JFHJr (㊟) 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments, and thanks likewise to everyone who has helped to clean up the article. And having seen how much material has been removed, and what remains, I think I'm now justified in suggesting that the article now fails to demonstrate notability: essentially, we are in a WP:BLPIE situation, where the only significant coverage of Ms Currie beyond the tabloid-style gossip now (justly) removed concerns the 'You Can Do Magic' single, that Currie may or may not have sung on, apparently created for a Cook Report 'expose' that seems to have been something of a non-event, having failed to get the record anywhere of significance in the charts. If this episode needs coverage on Wikipedia at all, it is almost certainly in the Cook Report article, rather than in a single-episode 'biography'. The article describes Currie as a former journalist, but fails to provide evidence that her journalistic career as such attracted any real attention from independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you there. Biggest coatrack is mommy. There are probably more, but I found refs that failed V and couldn't even use them after trying. See the article talk page. LOTSOFSOURCES, and BLP1E, and sort of a biography of failure. JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I ported the relevant passage to The Cook Report. If consensus agrees with that, it'll more clearly show the 1E nature of the BLP. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Eden Golan

    Eden Golan became huge news while the Eurovision was happening, but now the party has moved on, leaving her article behind in its wake. Given what's happening in the world, that she's an Israeli with a Russian connection was too juicy to ignore and suddenly the Israeli was a Russian Israeli even though she identifies as 100% Israeli and 0% Russian. There are over 15 threads on her talk page devoted to this. Maybe coming here and then to the Admin board will make things worse, but I have faith in the processes. This needs cool heads to take a look at. Thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This crops up all the time with Palestinian Americans and Israeli Americans, I always thought that it meant dual citizenship, if that's right, then that should be straightforward to source? Or maybe not. Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is some disagreement on whether she has dual citizenship. There is currently a Hebrew source in the article which says she doesn't have Russian citizenship, however I cannot find that information in the source. (I have asked the editor who made the claim and sourced it for clarification. Meanwhile Makeandtoss has argued that RSs calling her "Russian-Israeli" is evidence that she does hold dual citizenship. (Which is in line with one other case I have seen.)
    EDIT: I have confirmed that Eden Golan herself claims she has no Russian citizenship in this source. [45]
    Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She was born an Israeli in Israel. I'm not sure what weight parentage and passport status hold in this article's body, but only Israeli seems to belong in the lede. JFHJr (㊟) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought it was not legally possible for people to have dual Russian and Israeli citizenship. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I can see you can have dual citizenship if both your parents have Russian citizenship (if you are born outside Russia) (Relevant page) and you have another citizenship. Russia does not recognize the other citizenship if you have dual citizenship (with exceptions for some former soviet states), but you will still have it. So it comes down to the citizenship status of her parents at the time of her birth.
    Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 07:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The recently amended law apparently says "descendants of individuals permanently residing in the USSR or Russian Empire"[46]. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh thanks, I had missed the amendment.
    Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How does any of this square with MOS:IDENTITY? JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Carney

    Article by the strad magazine and following edits are incorrect and potentially libelous. EEOC claim was brought against the the Baltimore symphony orchestra and not Jonathan carney. The claim was rejected by the EEOC in 2023 as unwarranted and was denied.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardcarney (talk • contribs)

    Your removal of this content, first under an IP and then under this account, have all been reverted. The source appears to confirm what is expressed in the article. I also fear, based on your username, you might have a conflict of interest. --ZimZalaBim talk 11:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some more context based on what I could find in reliable sources. The question is whether WP:NPF should apply to Carney. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregorian Bivolaru

    I just had a look at Gregorian Bivolaru and it appears to be a painful combination of bad writing, WP:BLPCRIME possible violations and WP:BATTLEGROUND - extra eyes very much needed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have only mentioned the name of another person, Bivolaru's French right-hand man. Anyone is free to delete his name from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the article needs a lot of work, especially after the recent somewhat conspiratorial issues. I did a little bit of trimming a few days ago, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that there is just too much information on the page - just look at the two paragraphs about his arrest and institutionalization in 1989. If we strip out some of the excessive detail, that may resolve some of the BLPCRIME problems. EasyAsPai (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Legal Problems" section is somewhat alarming from a WP:BLPCRIME perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two women were mentioned by name as his victims. But it wasn't me who added their names to the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and the controversies section is just like, here's all the lurid allegations that didn't make it into his actual legal trouble. A lot of them are really controversies about the overall MISA organization's beliefs, which makes me wonder if we should have a separate page for MISA - I know he's the main leader and all, but it feels like this is two articles in one. EasyAsPai (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have attempted some clean-up by removing line items that were not supported by sources or by bad sources like WP:BLPPRIMARY or advocacy groups like Human Rights Without Frontiers International and Amnesty Inc. Another thing that hampers the article is that it thinks every sentence deserves its own paragraph and sometimes the seemingly unsourced assertion is supported by a later citation. The legal problems section reads like a WP:NOTNEWS blotter. Perhaps a complete rewrite based on the plentiful recent English reliable sources available that summarises his legal history is necessary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, there are not many high-quality sources about him in English. That's mostly because the events mainly concern Romania, Sweden, Finland and France. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Unsourced defamatory claim about Bret Weinstein

    RealLRLee you received your answer. You are quoting MOS:LEAD out of context in your latest comments. Consensus here is clear. Use the article's talk page if you want to ask that someone add a reference to the last sentence of the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:09, 24 May 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.

    Please see Talk:Bret_Weinstein.

    Is my assessment that the defamatory statement qualifies for immediate mandatory deletion correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealLRLee (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume you are referring to the statement in the lede? This is covered in further detail in the article body, citing multiple sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, given WP:V, doesn't the "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, and for spreading about HIV/AIDS" claim require footnoting the claim where the claim is first made?
    Further, what is the appropriate BLP NPOV criteria for including "criticized" in the lede for a BLP article? RealLRLee (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The lede is a summary of the article body. It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede. As for NPOV, it is a simple, demonstrable fact that Weinstein has been criticised, and that per multiple reliable sources, the statements he made are false. As for NPOV policy, I suggest you read what it actually says, in particular in regard to WP:WEIGHT. Weinstein's views are far removed from scientific consensus, and we do not present fringe medical claims as having any credibility, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Guidance at WP:LEADREF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the discussion at [[Talk:Bret Weinstein#A [citation needed] should be added for "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about ..."]]. Should this discussion be occurring here, at BLP/N? Or at the article's noticeboard? Clearly this discussion needs to occur in one location.
    The assertion by User:AndyTheGrump that "It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede" is directly contradicted by MOS:CITELEAD as explained at the talk page link above. How should this direct contradiction of the MOS:CITELEAD be resolved? RealLRLee (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No it's not. CITELEAD says exactly what Andy said. In most cases it's not necessary to provide a ref for the lede simply because it's already cited in the article. It's often best not to use refs any more than necessary to prevent WP:OVERKILL which disrupts readability. CITELEAD says we can use refs in the lede if someone thinks it will prevent unnecessary confusion, in which case all you need to do is take one from below and cite it up top.
    On the other point, you brought the discussion here, and here is where it'll get more eyes and responses (like mine). Zaereth (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per User:Zaereth's comment, I will copy the discussion from [[Talk:Bret Weinstein#A [citation needed] should be added for "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about ..."]] to this thread, just below ...
    Copyied text starts ...
    As "Controversial articles tend to have refs in the lead more often" and the article in question is clearly controversial and, per MOS:CITELEAD, "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads" then the citations in the lead are clearly needed.
    I have difficulty reconciling User:AndyTheGrump's "The lede is a summary of the article body. It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede" and User:Zaereth's "CITELEAD says exactly what Andy said" with the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD. RealLRLee (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You reconcile everything by taking a bird's eye view of the article and ask yourself: is this lede wikivoice statement of controversy adequately referenced in the body? If not, add a ref citation to the lede. Even though articles containing controversy might have them more often, a threshold determination of adequacy-below should be made. Here, consensus so far does not support your proposal for a citation in the lede for that reason. I also disfavor lede refs except in articles which lack substantial ref-cited content below. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree. It's not like it's ambiguous or anything. I mean the information on this takes up nearly 1/4 of the body, so I don't see why it would be necessary to cite it in the lede, being as that it's plainly obvious. Still, I personally wouldn't quibble over it much if it ends this dispute either. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Zaereth! I would add that your rationale just above is also exactly why OP shouldn't push on this. And ao far, it looks to me like four uninvolved BLPN editors with their own differently-worded rationales have rejected OP's comment/complaint/request. Nobody but OP had chimed in to pick up and carry this torch. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, nothing to do here (though there would be no harm in duplicating the ample citations for this in the lede, other than creating a mess of blue). Contrary to what the OP asserts there is nothing 'defamatory' or even controversial about this: there is solid and copious sourcing saying that this guy does indeed spout crap about COVID and HIV/AIDS, as the article details. Wikipedia reflects that, to be neutral. There is zero RS saying otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bon courage: Thank you. Make that 1:5. For an obscure subject, this represents an overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that much of the commentary, above, ignores the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD -- "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads".  Would the parties refusing to add the needed "citation needed" (or actual citations) please explain their reasoning for ignoring the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD?
    I note that much of the comment, above, ignores the plain text of MOS:LEAD -- "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it."
    Again,  MOS:LEAD requires "... must include an inline citation to a reliable source ...".  MOS:LEAD does NOT read  "... must include a citation somewhere else in the article to a reliable source ...".
    If someone would be so kind as to add the missing "citation needed" then further wasted time on this matter can be avoided. RealLRLee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bon courage: Your assertion that "there is nothing 'defamatory' ... about this" suggests that you are unfamiliar with the definition of "defamatory". Might you be confusing the meaning of "defamatory" with the phrase "false and defamatory"? RealLRLee (talk) 20:03, 24 May 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.

    Christie Sides

    The Indiana Fever section of the entry for their coach Christie Sides includes some obviously derogatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8f80:bce0:f162:5101:24bf:e51f (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like it was already removed. Thanks for your report. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Suicide of Sammy Teusch

    WP:NAC: All done here. JFHJr (㊟) 02:03, 24 May 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.

    I feel like this needs more eyes. Are we sure we should even have this article? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Just Step Sideways: You hereby owe me eight fluid ounces of un-see juice. There's a related meme on the interwebs that makes me feel like a parakeet at the moment. I hope AfD goes speedily. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:32, 24 May 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 on BLPs at DYK

    There is an RfC about Can DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs and remain in compliance with WP:BLP policy? that may be of interest. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jordan Peterson: discussion of sourcing and tone of a disputed paragraph

    More input is requested on the BLP-related discussion I started on the article Talk page.

    As a related matter, I have also been asked on my Talk page[47] whether this removal under BLPRESTORE/3RRNO #7 was in process or not. I removed the material after multiple editors had objected on BLP grounds, for apparent NPOV violation and poor sourcing, pending affirmative consensus on Talk.

    I'm uncertain whether this is the correct venue for the latter discussion, but additional input on this is also welcome. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on comments on Talk, the question at issue about BLPRESTORE and 3RRNO seems to be whether 3RRNO #7 is limited to potentially harmful BLP material, or whether biased or poorly sourced material in general may be removed on these grounds. The relevant language of WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPRESTORE does not seem to be limited to harmful material, but there may be some context here that my neurodivergence has missed.
    If the intention of these passages is that 3RRNO #7 only covers potentially harmful BLP material, then I think a centralized discussion is required to alter the policy language. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems to be one of those things where a little common sense would need to come into play. There's an inherent danger in making a policy too specific because where such limitations can be helpful in one circumstance they can be a hinderance in another, and policy needs some room for flexibility to account for different situations. In general, not everything in a bio falls under BLP policy exclusively. Many things fall under NPOV, RS, OR, V, etc... The purpose of BLP policy is primarily to protect our subjects and their rights, so I'm not really seeing any kind of BLP policy issue at play here, and if this is something more related to NPOV or RS then it doesn't seem like 3RRNO or BLPRESTORE can readily be invoked in the name of BLP policy.
    That said, the disputed paragraph is a nightmare to read due to WP:OVERKILL and reeks of synth and OR. It always raises a big red-flag when so many refs are used for a single sentence, especially when they're interstitially dispersed throughout the sentence like that. I mean, if you need to cite every single word, it starts to come off like a Jack van Impe sermon, but instead of using the Bible to predict the end of the world we're citing every primary source with his name on it as proof of his fields of expertise. In other words, as written it gives some huge cringe vibes. But is it a BLP policy issue? It doesn't appear so. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'd have thought this bio subject would have enough coverage in secondary sources not to need to synth stuff up from primaries; smells a bit POV-pushy. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No comment on the details, but I would be wary of relying on BLPRESTORE unless you're absolutely certain it needs immediate removal from the article. If there is consensus that it isn't a BLP issue then you are just editor waring. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Irene Tracey

    Irene Tracey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    On 24 May, a new account User:Oxfordscholar334442 has added nearly ten thousand bytes of content to this biography – around a third of its present content – about an event that happened on 23 May. It's sourced, but some of the citations are to student newspapers, campaigning websites, and Twitter. It looks like a case of undue weight and, to some extent, original research. I'm not presently an employee of the University of Oxford but I have been, and occasionally do work for it. The edit could do with being reviewed by someone unconnected to the institution and these events. Grateful for any fresh eyes, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Simplest option is to revert the edit, as Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict only allows edits by extended-confirmed editors. Kathleen's bike (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitly came across as undue. there may be cause for some mention of the issue, but not to that extent, and not so badly sourced. I've removed it for now. - Bilby (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, many thanks for your feedback, I will provide an updated version with a more appropriate weight, as hearing your critque it does appear to be given undue weight as viewed in context of the whole article. A good point of comparison on the point of appropriate weight and neutrality is the Minouche Shafik article, which includes under "career" a section titled "Pro-Palestinian protests and controversy" which occupies approximately 20% of the page (460/2253 words). On the other hand the controversy with Shafik was larger than with Tracey, but also Tracey's other career sections are less lengthy given her dedication to a career path in academia. Removing one of the most covered incidents of Tracey's career would violate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.
    With regards to sourcing, you have concerns with some citations linking to student newspaper, campaigning websites, and twitter. Firstly, the student newspapers' reports were assessed as being reliable on this issue, given corroborating mainstream sources referenced, and were engaged in on-the-ground factual reporting. Notwithstanding, I will do a better job by providing multiple references to different sources to assuage these concerns. Secondly, the use of campaigning website of Oxford Act for Palestine and twitter was solely used to quote the official responses of Oxford Act for Palestine, which was on their website, and the University and Colleges Union, which was on their verified twitter account. Equally, the University of Oxford's statement, signed by tracey, was also directly referenced. My attempt was to ensure objectivity and draw no conclusions, simply providing the reader with the different positions of the key parties involved in the controversy. Notwithstanding, the block quote for Oxford Act's response was undue, but that was because their response to the allegation of assault was itself longer than the allegation itself, by word count. Many thanks for the comments and I hope we can address them as a community without removing an objective account crucial controversy regarding this public figure.
    However, I do disagree with the allegation that this qualifies as original research, as every point was sourced and vetted by reliable sources - there was nothing different or new to the edit which was not already published by news media (secondary sources) and the parties themselves (primary sources). The parties accounts were qualified and in quotations, in line with wikipedia guidelines. There was no analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.
    Furthermore, the guidleine of Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict which only allows edits by extended-confirmed editors for related content to the arab israeli conflict does not extend to this issue. The controversy regards handling of protests as a question of proportionality and freedom of expression rather than motivation and connections to the Israel-Palestine conflict. So long as the focus is on the incident and handeling of protests it should remain open to all to discuss. Happy to hear different viewpoints on this.
    As for conflicts, I am not a member of OA4P, or the University College Union, or any of the cited organizations. I am a scholar within the Oxford University community, but am only interested in seeing a neutral and objective account of Irene Tracey, which must necessarily include the incidents of March 23. Moreover, please note that Mr Martin Poulter does bear a considerable conflict of interest as he worked particularly in the capacity of "Wikimedian in Reseidence" at the University of Oxford. Ultimately, we must work together to arrive at a neutral and objective account of Tracey.
    To conclude the March 23 incident should be included as "a controversy" which Tracey was involved, given the sea of differing opinions. We must abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view when covering this issue, not drawing conclusions, citing the positions of the parties, the reported facts, and leaving the reader to their own devices.
    I will provide an update soon for you all to review. Oxfordscholar334442 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, edits about opinions about the conflict, including protests and how they are handled, all fall under the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict restriction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please be careful with insinuations. Unlike you, I haven't edited the article or its Talk page, so bringing up a supposed conflict of interest (other than repeating what I've already declared) is pointless. And for that matter, I'm not "Mr". MartinPoulter (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to emphasise, if this is really so important to add, someone who is extended confirmed can do it. Not you. Oxford is an extremely well known university, so it implausible that something really so important will not get the attention of extended confirmed editors so there is absolution no reason why ARBECR needs to be violated. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also while this doesn't matter in the particular case since you should not be touching this, I'll mention it in case you are involved in future BLPs which could even include this one in areas which don't relate to her handling of the protestors etc. WP:BLPSPS clearly disallows self-published sources for material about living persons unless the material is published by the living person themselves and does not involve third parties. Clearly tweets or other official statements by other organisations are not published by Tracey so cannot be used in an article about her. The university's statement is a bit more iffy, however generally speaking in such cases, there is zero reason for us to rely on the official statement directly for anything. If it's not covered in reliable secondary sources, then it's undoubtedly WP:undue to include. Anything which is covered in reliable secondary sources should be using those as the main sources with the official statement at most added as an additional source rather than intended to support anything said in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As of note, another non-ECP made edits to the article that I reverted. More concerning is that they created 2024 Oxford Action for Palestine Encampment, which has now been edited by ECP accounts that disputed some assertions in the original draft. Not sure if an AfD is appropriate here so I PRODed it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Cain (politician)

    Could someone take a look at Peter Cain (politician)? In the last few months, there has been substantial edit warring among mostly new editors and sockpuppets (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samreeveparl) regarding a "Controversy" section, which was added by the relatively new editor LocalCbrHero1988 (talk · contribs). Giving the article a cursory read, this does smell like it could be an WP:NPOV WP:BLP violation, placing undue weight on the controversies, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject area to have an informed opinion here. I am particularly curious if the sources cited in the Controversy section meet Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline. The Canberra Times seems to meet the bar, but unsure about the-riotact.com. Mz7 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A politician accused another politician of not being a school principal and then walked back on it by conceding he was a principal of a de-registered school? Is the news that slow in Canberra? There should be multiple reliable sources about this if this is to be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh. This is where I am at as well. I am not against removing the controversy section in the absence of more substantial coverage, particularly from national-level news sources. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have indeffed LocalCbrHero1988 per User talk:LocalCbrHero1988#May 2024. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block especially given the absolute nonsense they posted in the past. On the general issue, as I mentioned last time, it's likely no coincidence that the 2024 Australian Capital Territory general election is coming in the next few months. Probably a matter of throwing whatever sticks as much as anything. It does seem that particular editor has focused on a limited number of politicians which also help explain why they're adding such weird stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Graham Lineham

    It has a heading "anti transgender activism" Graham is a supporter of women's rights and children's safety from a medical pathway of drugs and surgery. The CASS report shares those same concerns. As do 1000s of women who are fighting for their single sex spaces & sports. This is not anti trans. It also says he doxxed Mridul Wadhwa a transwoman who is the ceo of rape crisis edinburgh. This is lies. Be careful these are libellous allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkworm2024 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I will spell out at User talk:Silkworm2024 the procedures regarding WP:NLT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This concerns Graham Linehan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) where "anti-transgender activist" is in the lead with a lot more in the article. I'm just reporting the situation and have no idea about the merits. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Silkworm2024, have you read the FAQ on the article talkpage? While it deals with the description rather than the heading it deals with basically the same issue. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Killing of Laken Riley

    Killing of Laken Riley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I opened up a case about this over at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard (see here), and a volunteer suggested that I post here instead. Since multiple people have been involved in this discussion and I don't want to copy-paste massive amounts of text, I will simply advise that whoever is considering this read the discussion on the DRN, and possibly the article's Talk page as well (see here). We are seeking a decision on the language to be used in the body of the article ("murder" vs. "killing"/"homicide"), except for instances where we are describing specific charges filed or quotes from sources. Gottagotospace (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    (Note: I copied this from over there in case it is closed)
    Here is my view: Wikipedia is not a court of law. We do have to assume innocence until guilt is proved, but we can also use some measure of common sense. Murder is the illegal, unjustifiable killing of another person. I actually don't agree with a previous editor's suggestion that "murder" is synonymous with "killing." Saying "I killed a mosquito," sounds normal. Saying "I murdered a mosquito," will get some strange reactions. Now, the death wasn't a suicide, manslaughter or accident. There is absolutely no hint of justification, such as self-defense. The party who killed her (whether its the suspect or not) committed murder. We don't know if the suspect did it because there's an assumption of innocence until any conviction. So if he's innocent, someone else still murdered her. But even if, for example, he did kill her and argues that he has a legal excuse (such as an insanity defense) the murder still occurred even if that argument is accepted and he isn't personally culpable for the crime. The murder happened regardless of the suspect's involvement or culpability. The death was due to blunt force trauma and asphyxiation, followed by multiple strikes to the head with a rock. There is no reasonable situation that this case could be self-defense. Now a court would at least have to entertain that possibility, but we do not (at least until that is actually claimed by the defense during the trial). Also, while we certainly can't assume that the suspect is guilty, I think we can take the polices' word that he didn't know her to be true (once again until such time as the defense says otherwise) therefore negating a crime of passion. The circumstances of the death also render this idea absurd. I think it is reasonable to assume the murder was a "crime of opportunity" as has been reported (regardless of who committed it), unless this is later contradicted. Unlike other cases mentioned on the "Talk" page, the circumstances and motivation are not controversial, only what the crime signifies and that isn't relevant here. The key point is this: I have wondered under what circumstances the "ignore rules" idea is to be utilized. I think this is one such place. After all, the phrasing suggestions are guidelines, not iron-clad rules. We should use reason in certain instances instead of always following a guideline that can't account for every circumstance. I think this is an exception that proves the rule. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again I changed the edit back to how it was. Someone tried changing it again. Until we reach a conclusion that shouldn't be done. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TanRabbitry: Let's all note: at DNR, WP:CONSENSUS was developing against your position: OP Gottagotospace, Objective3000, Cakelot1 were against; on the article, FMSky and I have both taken corrective measures. 5:1 means you shouldn't be editing the article without a firmer consensus in your favor as the proponent of "murder" at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 00:59, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin also was against this on the article TP[48] and reverted the mentions of "murder".[49] TanRabbitry reverted the admin. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Inquiry for second opinion. At what point does BLPN forward all this to WP:ANI? It's only been a second, and it would be the fourth venue counting talkpage, but ANI looks close already to me. JFHJr (㊟) 01:23, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...might as well make that 6:1. (Thank you, C.Fred!) TanRabbitry, what are your thoughts on the consensus that's apparent? Will you drop the stick until and unless a "murder" conviction is reported by a reliable source? Or would it be easier to explain at WP:ANI why your refusal to accept a consensus poses no risk to the project? JFHJr (㊟) 01:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it that we set out to discuss this wording on the talk page and now we have rapidly moved over to two new locations without really saying anything new? I do not believe that it is correct to say that consensus has been reached here. One editor mentioned in the last place has not even reported his perspective yet. Additionally there were other editors on the "Talk" page were not contacted as to this. One for example was @SmashingThreePlates. What is their opinion? I do not understand why after we came here to discuss this, two editors (that one happened to be an administrator is irrelevant) edited the article without us reaching a conclusion. What is the rush to say consensus is reached? I thought that was the purpose of this. Now you want to move the discussion a third time? Why not wait and hear several other opinions from disinterested editors, as well as the involved ones who haven't stated their opinion? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Porting my DRN comment: Well, not every homicide is a murder. The term homicide is rather technical and unwieldy, and only means "killing of another human being," meaning some second human is responsible. So for title purposes, "killing" is sufficient. If we suspected a bear could have done it, we'd be left with "death." And if you're drawing rational conclusions not based on a legal determination per a reliable source, you've WP:NORed and WP:POVed a "murder." Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The legal determination is the coroner's report. The conclusions are based on that. I feel like you're intentionally being a bit obtuse. Under what reasonable circumstances could someone be killed by strangulation and blunt trauma in a public place in broad daylight and it not be murder? All of tthose are established facts. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Murder is a legal term. Death certificates don't say "murder"; they say "homicide". And I don't see anything about strangulation/asphyxiation in the sources about Laken's death. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, strictly speaking I should have written "asphyxiated," rather than "strangled."
    As to a source, here you go: "Ms (sic) Riley died from blunt force trauma and asphyxiation."[1] TanRabbitry (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC) TanRabbitry (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the only source I've seen say that. None of the other sources I've seen have said that. Besides, it doesn't matter for the point we're talking about regarding the "murder" vs. "killing" language. We can't decide if it's murder or not, for the reasons that have been explained multiple times now. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Other sources: [2][3][4]
    This a bit off topic, but some of these also mention attempted rape being a charge that was added to the indictment. I remember seeing some dispute over adding that. Is that currently in the article? What was the argument against its addition? I haven't read enough about it to have an opinion, but it seems important.
    TanRabbitry (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC) TanRabbitry (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is definitely off topic. I suggest bringing that up on the article's Talk page in a new section of the discussion. It's not related to the "murder" vs. "killing" question that we're talking about here, and we shouldn't clog the BLP noticeboard with that unrelated discussion. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are correct. That is in truth basically unrelated. I just noticed it while adding the additional sources. It should be brought up on the "Talk" page though, as I remember seeing an argument about it. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 03:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gottagotospace
    Do you think this additional evidence pointing to what could (in my opinion) only have been a murder (though by whom we do not know) would change your mind, or any other editor's mind with an opposing opinion in this regard? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 03:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope! As I've said multiple times, murder is a legal term and it is NOT up to us to decide whether it was murder or not. The specific homicide method determined by the coroner doesn't make a difference. It's NOT for us to come to conclusions on whether or not it counts as "murder". It doesn't matter what your view on the term "murder" means. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K., fair enough.
    I think we all fully agree murder is a legal term. It isn't my view of the word's definition (that's irrelevant), but the question of if this is a case where it is more accurate than an alternative. I believe that in this particular case, it is. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is a further point I would like to see commented on: the opening sentence of the article says that she "was abducted and killed." If that is stated in the body of the text as a matter of fact, why not that she was murdered? What is the difference? What evidence is the abduction based on other than the indictment? A coroner's report can't tell if someone was abducted. It seems inconsistent to say "abducted" and not "murdered." Would those who are against my position agree "allegedly" should proceed "abducted" based on their perspective? Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent point! Perhaps we should take out "abducted" too! I'm in favor of that, unless multiple people give me a good reason based in sources and/or policy why we should not. And no, none of this is sarcasm. Gottagotospace (talk) 02:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A coroner's report is a primary source. We care mostly about how reliable secondary (third-party) sources characterize this event. JFHJr (㊟) 02:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A primary source may be used more than is typically allowed provided any rational person could not come to any other conclusion than the atatment that summarizes said source. Besides, that comes through news articles, not the coroner's report directly. The main point is that we shouldn't be totally bound to certain suggested guidelines. I am not directly arguing against those guidelines, that is another debate. I am not speaking of other cases either, only that this particular example is different for all the reasons I have stated. Lastly, I think the fact that it has taken several days for us to notice the abduction point it is a testament to my suggestion that we shouldn't rush. TanRabbitry (talk) 02:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I went ahead and removed the "abducted" language as unsupported, but anyone can replace it with a solid ref. I suggest placing it within the relevant section or the infobox. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be a stupid question, and I haven't read through all the discussions (sorry), but I wondered, given a global readership, whether variations in the meaning of the word 'murder' in English around the world (with dependencies on other factors like planning) should be a consideration, perhaps making simple words like killed a better choice? Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I hadn't considered that, but I believe in some other English-speaking countries: "Wilful murder is an unlawful killing with an intention to kill and murder is an unlawful killing with an intention to do grievous bodily harm." TanRabbitry (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually we go on what reliable sources say, and abide by WP:BLPCRIME and the rest of WP:BLP as to the accused. We don't decide something is "murder" because that's the only reasonable verdict, and yes "murder" requires a verdict in a WP:BLP context. JFHJr (㊟) 03:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TanRabbitry, some countries use compound terms that include the word murder to convey information about intent etc., some countries don't, they use different words entirely in the absence of intent, like manslaughter. So, there is a bit of complexity associated with that word. Also, I guess there is added complexity because of US state law variations. JFHJr, I assume TanRabbitry knows what policy says, and yet they still like the word. A different kind of argument might do something different. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "I assume TanRabbitry knows what policy says, and yet they still like the word." That is correct, although it is less "like," and more "views it as more accurate." I understand what the guidelines say. But even the most thorough suggestion, rule, guideline, law, manual, idea, theory, et cetera, cannot describe every circumstance. It is a general policy that is usually correct and should be considered first. I think that in this case we can use our liberty to "be bold" and carefully use the more accurate term. I have no idea if this should apply to any other similar article. I just think it does to this one. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Be bold" when describing a serious crime that occurred just a few months ago and the suspect is still alive? Doesn't sound like a great idea. Gottagotospace (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K. How about: "I think that in this case we can use our liberty to utilize Wikipedia:5P5" and carefully use the more accurate term." I'm not sure what the suspect being alive has to with it? In my mind he has nothing to do with this since there hasn't been a conviction yet, let alone a trial. TanRabbitry (talk) 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @JFHJr
    But you are talking about a person accused committing a crime. You make it sound as if I am saying the only reasonable JURY VERDICT is guilty. This has nothing at all to do with the suspect and everything to do with the victim. My argument is that the only reasonable CAUSE OF DEATH was murder. The suspect has absolutely nothing to do with this. Who knows if he did it or not? Not us or anyone else until the trial is over. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I am starting to wonder if any of us actually understand the policy. Where exactly does it say anything about people who are victims of crimes? The guideline that keeps being mentioned refers exclusively to those accused of crimes. It is not controversial or disputed that the subject of this article was murdered. The dispute is over language describing said murder. The policy referenced is presumption of innocence. @JFHJr You seem concerned I am not assuming innocence to the suspect. In fact, I have had to correct other editors who were presuming guilt on the part of the suspect. Here I am concerned over the language speaking of the victim. How is describing the murder as a murder implying that the suspect did it? Someone did it, but neither you, nor I have seen any evidence of his guilt. I have no idea as to his guilt, only that someone is guilty. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the guideline I am arguing against here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Not the Biographies of Living People. I consider this as negating any idea that consensus has been reached, since we weren't even arguing about the same guidelines.

    TanRabbitry (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Final note (for now): Perhaps there is something that is against my position somewhere else, but I would add that the referenced article on naming, explicitly states it is neither a policy nor guideline. Until such time as a policy or guideline affirming it is found, this seems like it is a dispute between the language and about a "vetted guideline." Apologies for not noticing this sooner. Maybe the last place was a better location for this discussion. It doesn't have to do the Biographies of Living People. TanRabbitry (talk) 04:31, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My argument is that the only reasonable CAUSE OF DEATH was murder. This claim you repeatedly insist upon is the problem. There were no witnesses to the death. We do not know if the perpetrator possessed the mens rea to commit murder. In fact, we really have no idea what occurred. A determination of murder would require knowing exactly what happened, the state of mind of a perpetrator, and knowing the detailed definition of murder in the jurisdiction of the event. WP:OR To top this off, there was intense political pressure. The ex-president two weeks later posting "Border INVASION is destroying our country and killing our citizens!" The victims name yelled out in the State of the Union address two weeks later. The Laken Riley Act passed by Congress two weeks later. This puts enormous pressure on the state to prosecute and is the political environment under which the grand jury deliberated. This is why we have trials instead of lynchings. It's also why we avoid inflammatory words and conclusions in WP:BLPs, waiting for adjudication first. We can state that one of the charges is murder. We should not call it murder in WikiVoice. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Objective3000 Your comment mirrors a lot of my sentiments, although I hadn't thought about the political pressure stuff before. Thank you for phrasing it so well. Gottagotospace (talk) 11:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TanRabbitry Consider the following possibilities that could theoretically be revealed as supported during the trial:
    • The police's conclusion that the suspect did not know the victim was incorrect, and it turns out the suspect and victim had a huge argument and the killing was a "crime of passion" that might count as a type of manslaughter.
    • The suspect did not mean to kill the victim, but merely tried to knock her out, and accidentally killed her.
    • The suspect was having a psychotic episode (from a psychotic disorder, drugs, or something else) that caused him to kill her for some reason, like auditory hallucinations commanding him to kill her, visual hallucinations of her turning into a demon, etc.
    • The suspect is found to have diminished mental capacity for some reason, like an intellectual disability, that renders him unable to understand the consequences of his actions.
    Now these are all things I pulled out of thin air and there's no evidence to support them at this time, but something like that could potentially be revealed during the trial. And if this guy's found to be completely uninvolved and they eventually catch the real killer and put that person on trial, one of those possibilities could potentially apply to their trial too. Those sorts of possibilities could result in different outcomes rather than a murder conviction, like maybe manslaughter, or "not guilty by reason of insanity". Gottagotospace (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Laken Riley: Venezuelan charged with murdering Georgia nurse". 2024-05-08. Retrieved 2024-05-29.
    2. ^ "Georgia nursing student Laken Riley's alleged killer indicted on 10 charges - UPI.com". UPI. Retrieved 2024-05-29.
    3. ^ Hughes, Rosana; Manins, Rosie. "Laken Riley case: Indictment includes new accusations against suspect". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. ISSN 1539-7459. Retrieved 2024-05-29.
    4. ^ Limehouse, Jonathan. "Alleged killer of nursing student Laken Riley indicted by grand jury in Georgia on 10 counts". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2024-05-29.

    Anthony J. Resta

    Anthony J. Resta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I have concerns about this article. I deleted a huge amount of puffery and promotional language from it in February, most of which was sourced to Resta's own website, Youtube videos of performances and similar unreliable sources not suitable for any article much less a BLP. Later, I noticed Doc54625 (talk · contribs) reinserted some of the promotional language [50]. Having looked at Doc54625's edits, it seems 99% of them have been to this article, many of them edits covering very obscure music industry people [51] cited to unreliable sources like Discogs and Imdb, or simply adding puffery to the article about various awards. I suspect Doc54625 is actually Resta himself and this BLP has become an autobiography. I also note that the smilarly-named Doc2234 (talk · contribs) created the related Resta article Anthony J. Resta discography, which is currently full of all the refbombing puffery removed from the main article. Sockpuppetry? Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with your BLP-related concerns, and since you've remedied the worst of them, I'm happy to watch the page for developments. If you think there's an SPI case, you'd need a pair of editors active within a shorter time of each other than 2018/2024. I recommend waiting to see if the older account resurrects. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Patricia Marroquin Norby

    Patricia Marroquin Norby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    There is an attempt to state that Norby is a pretender or self-identified indigenous person. The information is based upon a [[52]New York Post] article and Tribal Alliance Against Frauds non-profit press release. It is a continuing trend to out people they claim are not Native Americans because they are not citizens of reservations.[53][54] See the talk page: Talk:Patricia Marroquin Norby, most specifically #Indigenous woman and #Reverted edits, where I have made the same points in this next article.

    I just went through a long bout on the Lillie Rosa Minoka Hill (talk) article where the two editors claimed that she was not of Mohawk heritage, even though there were sources. And, that she wasn't the second Native American woman physician, although there were lots of sources, no one who claimed to have that accomplishment in 150 years, and recent identification of the accomplishment.

    I believe this ties back to whether there is a complete Draft:Native American definition, so I drafted one. The big stumbling block is whether only people who are citizens of reservations can call themselves Native Americans.

    Other articles have been updated with the "self-identified" tag - without sources - and making it sound like the person it trying to scam someone. Maybe that's so. If it is, then it would be great to get everyone on the same page. I fear, though, that people are being victimized.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the piped label above.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaroleHenson In the reading comprehension department, I actually never claimed that Hill was not of Mohawk descent nor did I insert such a claim into the article. I clarified that she was not a St. Regis Mohawk citizen and that she self-identified as a Mohawk descendant without proof. Because that is what available sources indicate. She may very well have Mohawk ancestry. There's simply no verification. You keep asserting without evidence that the term "self-identified" is meant to defame or to insinuate that a person doesn't have Native heritage. That's false. It certainly does not imply that someone is a scammer; that is an imagined insinuation. That is not what self-identified means. By reading the Indigenous WikiProject guidance on these matters and through the numerous conversations you have participated in, you should know that at this point. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 04:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am here to help the noticeboard anyway that I can and to explain anything that is unclear to them.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither WP:NYPOST nor Tribal Alliance against Frauds are considered RS. How do reliable sources actually describe Norby's heritage or ancestry. Do they qualify it as self-identification or do they actually state that is what her heritage is. This is not the first rodeo for the noticeboard in editors arguing to prove or disqualify whether people are described as from some particular tribe while being challenged as not being a member of the tribe. Keep in mind WP:RGW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    According to Norby herself, many prominent Native women (America Meredith, Suzan Harjo, Nancy Mithlo, Tahnee Ahtoneharjo-Growingthunder, Jacqueline Keeler) have been speaking out about her claims, so I can only imagine more reliable sources will be published soon. Wikipedia can accurately write about these kinds of claims if you see Buffy Sainte-Marie#Claim of Indigenous identity as an example. Wikipedia isn't censored and no one is attempting to use NYP or the TAAF website to edit her article.  oncamera  (talk page) 08:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Oncamera: when such sources are published we definitely should add them but until they do it is too soon to try and change the article just because sources may eventually be published. An absence of sources is no better than using NYPOST or TAAF. I had a look and AFAICT, none of the sources say anything about identifying or self-identifying. Therefore such a wording is in clear violation of BLP, and editors need to cut that shit out lest they are blocked. The sources say "Patricia Marroquin Norby (Purépecha)", "Patricia Marroquin Norby, of the Purépecha people" and "suppressed her Purepeche (sic) and Apache ancestry". I have not looked at any of the guidelines but Wikipedia guidelines cannot override BLP (or any policy). If there is some guideline which tries to override BLP, editors need to fix it right now. If editors do not do so and it's a Wikiproject guideline I'll probably just take it to WP:MFD since I'm not interested in dealing with a Wikiproject which thinks it acceptable to violate BLP. I can completely understand why this is a sensitive issue and we definitely do need to look at ways we can handle it better. But this cannot be by sacrificing BLP and allow unsourced claims to be added. Instead, solutions might include relying only on top-notch sources before we add claims of indigenous identity, perhaps even excluding sources normally considered excellent if they persistently to a bad job on reporting on such issues. But ultimately Morbidthoughts, is right that WP:RGW has to come into play. There is a limit to what we can do, and it's likely in the near future we will continue to report on claims which might be inaccurate as if they are correct simply because it's what all RS say. People who are concerned about such issues need to take it up outside Wikipedia e.g. by trying to convince RS to do a better job, convince them to publish articles questioning unsupported claims etc. That is how you correct such problems not by trying to change Wikipedia to allow poorly sourced or unsourced claims to be made. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nil Einne Regarding I have not looked at any of the guidelines but Wikipedia guidelines cannot override BLP (or any policy). I have not seen a policy or guideline about Native or Indigenous people that goes against BLP. There's an essay WP:NDNID, but I don't think that's totally accurate and when it discusses people, it goes into self-identification. That has been the source used to convince me that we can use self-identification.
    I am understanding from this post that the key point is what reliable sources say and I am inferring that we don't necessarily need guidelines created (Discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America#Written guidelines and I could have probably handled it better), like the definition of Native American/Indigenous person, or the MOS:CITIZEN updated, I think the verbiage needs to be reviewed for Canada. Even though this seems to be an ongoing battle, there seems to be resistance in creating guidelines. But perhaps that's not needed if we rely on the content coming from reliable sources. Is that right? (made an edit about written guidelines in parenthesis and signed again).–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People are vastly overthinking this. Citizenship is based on legality. If there are no reliable sources we dont state as a fact they are a citizen of X polity. Re ethnicity/cultural heritage, if there are reliable sources that state they are of X, we state with fact they are of X. If there are no reliable sources that state it as fact, we use what they do say, or finally absent any reliable sources, we use what the subject themselves says attributed to them in a neutral fashion. "Subject claims descent of X" "Subject states they are descended from X". We do not use words like "Subject self-identifies as X" unless a reliable source explicitly does because that is a wording that says "subject says they are X and nothing else backs it up" which relies on facts not known. It is not difficult to phrase how someone describes their heritage without falling into judgemental value language, its done elsewhere all the time. If necessary quote the source directly and make it clear its a quote. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, great, that certainly makes life a lot easier.
    And, I am assuming that I can use the information from this post to make edits to remove the self-identification language from the essay WP:NDNID, except where reliable sources explicitly say that they self-identify?–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC) There's a link from MOS:CITIZEN to the essay.–CaroleHenson (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only in death, I've always saw this as a potential path forward. But what is considered a reliable source on Indigenous identity. Most of these so called reliable sources are just accepting primary evidence (the subjects own described identity) without giving it another thought (i.e. self-identification). Self-identification is a real term used by many organizations such as the UN. What do we call it when one identifies as being something but only their voice, whether through interviews, non-Native media or self-published sources is the only source for such a claim? They could use what is posted on Wikipedia as some legitimacy to point to in order to profit off Indigenous communities. I don't think Wikipedia should be legitimizing unverified claims from sources that have no way or desire to investigate such claims. The stealing of Indigenous identity to profit is not a new concept and is not one I can say I would be proud to be a part of enabling here or anywhere. In my view point it would not be honouring to myself or my heritage. That is just one aspect that makes defining identity complex. The ramifications are potentially huge and far more damaging to Indigenous cultures than for other cultures. I am open to discussion and further thought on this. I don't have the answers. I know what I believe and it doesn't always line up with Wikipedia but I will always follow consensus when it is gained through policy or discussion absent policy. Even if I don't like it. --ARoseWolf 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not our job to worry about it as wikipedia editors beyond 'is the source reliable'. If thats a genuine concern, then there should be a discussion about that source on that topic. But thats not what is happening across the articles here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1226248124"