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 130.54.130.244 (talk) at 10:04, 10 January 2020 (→Hiroto Saikawa: new section). 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:




    Attempted assassination of Donald Trump

    Could some editors please have a look at this article, the use of cited sources, and the associated AfD page. There was an incident at a Trump campaign rally in 2016. A young Aspergers Brit with many mental health issues had a psychotic episode in which he attempted to grab a security guard's pistol at the rally. He was immediately subdued and eventually served 6 months in jail for possession of a firearm. An editor has created and is "defending" an article that promotes the false narrative that this was a significant assassination attempt on Trump. In fact, the only lasting coverage given the incident related to discussion within the UK about how the social services and justice systems treat troubled individuals with behavioral problems. The article creates an UNDUE and BLP-disparaging narrative that is not supported by the weight of the RS coverage of this incident. Any wise input will be appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 17:45, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would welcome any suggestions on how the article could be improved. I would note that User:SPECIFICO appears to be heavily focused on articles relating to Donald Trump and would suggest that the article would benefit from oversight from someone less invested in the subject matter. McPhail (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In case anyone cares, McPhail has written 90% of the "assassination" article text. SPECIFICO talk 18:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - To be completely honest, this seems like a case of IDONTLIKEIT. What about the article was UNDUE? The article is well sourced and it certainly meets GNG because of that. I'm also not really sure how you can say that the article is not mentioning his mental health when the personal life section is almost entirely focused on that very topic, in addition to mental health being part of an entire paragraph in the lede. Jdcomix (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Why does the heading say "Attempted assassination of Donald Trump"? He was never charged with or pleaded guilty to attempting to assassinate Trump or anyone else. Moriori (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the labeling of this as an attempted assignation is OR, against BLP of the suspect. I don't know what else to call it, but definitely not " assassination.--Masem (t) 23:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Seconding the ongoing discussion about the title possibly being misleading, but I am also having problems with thinking of a potential title for a RfM. Jdcomix (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on US Statutes & the reification thereof. "Assassination" is a term with a common English meaning, "murder by sudden or secret attack often for political reasons : the act or an instance of assassinating someone (such as a prominent political leader)"[1]. Under US law, the only statute that I can find explicitly labeled "assassination" is 18 U.S. Code  1751. Presidential and Presidential staff assassination, kidnapping, and assault; penalties; the scope of which is limited to the President, Vice-President, both-Elect, their staff (the Cabinet), and the next in line if there is no Vice-President. If we are to take this statute as the determinant of what can and cannot be described using the term, then only those persons, and only post-dating that statute, can be assassinated. I am loath to do so. We would have to go against reliable sources in our descriptions of more than 99% of the entries in List of assassinations. Martin Luther King was clearly assassinated. As were Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Robert F. Kennedy, and Harvey Milk. - Ryk72 talk 04:17, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    It's hard to read this amateur legalistic mumbo-jumbo as anything other than a deflection from the central point of BLP, decency and erring on the side of protecting the privacy and rights of a living individual, in this case one whom nobody called an assassain or attempted murderer after the initial confusion and headline-writing hyperbole subsided. SPECIFICO talk 13:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A veritable outrage! I should like the record to show that I am well regarded for the professional quality of my legalistic mumbo-jumbo. Happy New Year! - Ryk72 talk 21:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the thing. All the cited sources were from the period shortly after the incident before the facts became known. This is not a notable event. The article presents prosecutors' early allegations as if they were fact. BLP violation. And when all of what we now know is put in context, we just have the story of a kid who had a psychotic break and acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. The folks at AfD don't seem to be focusing on much of this. SPECIFICO talk 23:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    Acted out in a very harmless way that he knew would get him caught, get him attention, and not harm anyone or anything. “I did try to kill a guy, mum.”[2] I'm not sure these quite gel. - Ryk72 talk 02:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The kid is mentally incompetent. That source says the judge, who is competent, dtermined that the kid did not attempt to kill. You are missing the crux. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The kid is mentally incompetent Not legally, because he was still charged and convicted. That source says the judge ... dtermined that the kid did not attempt to kill. No, it doesn't quite say that. It says the judge commented, not determined. He wasn't charged with attempted murder, so there was no determination on that aspect. He plead guilty to what he was charged with, so there was no determination on guilt. You are missing the crux. No, I don't think I am. He tried to take somebody's gun, with the intent to shoot to kill. I don't think it's reasonable to describe that as "acted out in a very harmless way" or "not harm anyone or anything". - Ryk72 talk 20:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryk72, I think you've made a distinction without a difference. You can substitute "comment" for "determine" and it does not weaken the point I made. We're not talking about judicial determination. The judge said -- how's that -- he did not believe the kid had the intent to kill.
    More importantly, I'm troubled by your approach to the issue. BLP is a core Policy on Wikipedia. If there is any doubt about the matter, we do not state that unindicted, unconvicted, uncharged individual attempted murder. Period. The judge's comment that he did not think he did should be quite sufficient for even undecided editors to err on the side of omitting it for purposes of this article. SPECIFICO talk 01:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to be having a week where people are attributing statements to me which I haven actually said. - Ryk72 talk 01:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    How cute! I raised a BLP concern where the Judge's comment negates the title and article content as BLP violations and you reply with nitpicking language. Very disappointing and unresponsive. SPECIFICO talk 02:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with everything that Ryk72 says above. But I also agree the title may not be a fair representation of what happened. I also think that wasn't "amateur legalistic mumbo-jumbo", although I fail to see the direct relevance of "U.S. Code  1751." Martinevans123 (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you agree that Ryk72's original research from his purported legal primary sources should be used for article content, rather than the secondary RS report of the statement of the judge who presided over the trial of the perpetrator (on a charge of going to a shooting range after he failed to renew his 90-day US guest visa?) I don't. SPECIFICO talk 14:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't either. I think we should base our articles on what reliable sources say, as filtered through our content policies & guidelines. It was a counter-argument to what I see as a poor argument - that poor argument being that we should engage in original research based on what the charges were to determine article title & content, rather than using sources, policies & guidelines. For policies, I'd start with WP:AT.
    As to the judge's comments, I think they are interesting, certainly noteworthy and definitely should be included; but ultimately they are an opinion, not a determinant of fact. Nit: No trial; plead guilty. - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Martinevans123: Re: I fail to see the direct relevance of "U.S. Code  1751. I only see it as relevant in the negative sense. The argument is made above, and at AfD, that we should not say "attempted assassination", because no-one was explicitly charged with "attempted assassination". That statute is the only "attempted assassination" statute. (Mere mortals must make do with mere murder). If we were to use that as a decider as to whether, when and where we could say "assassination", then we would have to exclude multiple incidents, all of which are commonly regarded as assassinations. I suppose I could've just said "No-one was charged with "assassination" for MLK, ME, MX, RFK, HM". - Ryk72 talk 22:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of being a notable event, I think it clearly passes the NEVENT bar, given the coverage out of the UK. But the event should be covered in the long-term view. Sources that came out in the days after the event calling it an "assassination" should be used very carefully over long-term sources where the crimes the person was actually charged with were determined. Perhaps there is room to speak to the run of the media to call it an "assassination" which later was disproven. This is basically applying WP:RECENTISM whenever you have something with a very specific legal meaning is being thrown around by sources that are not in the position to assign that legal meaning. (the same problem we have with "terrorism" for some attacks). --Masem (t) 01:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I generally like what you write a lot, Masem, and generally find agreement with it; though occasionally we differ on semantics. In this case, I'm not sure "disproven" is the right word. - Ryk72 talk 03:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm amazed that article even exists. GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC) I've just found and removed a group of references cited to British tabloids deprecated here at RSN. Help is needed vetting all the sources for this article. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed a section of the article that recites undue personal detail about the perpetrator and relies on press accounts of the confused accounts before all of the facts were known. I have asked author of the article not to reinsert that content. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The above article concerns an incident at a Donald Trump rally. Donald Trump Jr. gave an interview on Good Morning America reacting to the incident. My view is that this is germane to the article as it is a response to the incident from a public figure. Another editor has removed Trump Jr's reaction stating it is "meaningless UNDUE content that violates BLP by inflating the significance of the incident". I would welcome an objective view on whether it is appropriate to include Trump Jr.'s reaction in the article. McPhail (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Too many of our articles on modern events feature "immediate" reactions, when we should be working to look at the long-term opinions and assessments of events, per WP:RECENTISM. I agree the removal of the quote is UNDUE from this facet, it's just more immediate reaction rather than the long-term. --Masem (t) 21:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    McPhail, I've spent quite a bit of time removing text cited to shoddy sources and tabloids deprecated at RSN, removing misrepresentation, SYNTH, UNDUE inflated indications of significance and various other text and sourcing we don't use on BLPs. You've reinserted half a dozen of these, probably violating 3RR in the process. It would be refreshing to see you take the lead in removing the bad content and sourcing, most of which is your own additions to the article. Then we can think of an appropriate name for a move. SPECIFICO talk 22:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    title issue

    At the article Attempted assassination of Donald Trump, there are strong BLP problems - a specific, otherwise non-notable living individual is associated with the title. While there are some sources that use that term to describe the event, going by the guidelines at WP:BLPCRIME, we see that we should avoid suggesting that such an individual committed a crime unless they've been convicted of it. Said individual has not only not been convicted of that crime, but not even charged with that (they were found guilty of a far more minor crime, disorderly conduct.) While the recent AFD for that article ended with a Keep, even many of the Keep votes were saying that the page should/could be renamed, with BLP concerns often being cited. While there may be concerns for orderly page move, BLP concerns generally override most other concerns, and editor @Pudeo: has not only undone a move specifically intended to stop BLP concerns while a more proper name could be found, but also undid an attempt to edit the article to avoid the BLP concerns within the article (I have since restored those edits.) I am asking that the page be blanked until it can be moved to a title that does not fly in the face of WP:BLPCRIME. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:44, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Doug_Chapman_(American_football)

    Requesting page protection due to defamatory and libelous information being repeatedly posted unnecessarily. These edits made by posters with an axe to grind are public information that could damage ones career. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.187.84 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    What has been posted and removed is not defamatory. It is a garden-variety edit war between Prosportslogs and SinclairCEO over rather innocuous early-career information. I have warned both users as an uninvolved fellow editor and asked for page protection. Maybe then they can work it out on the talk page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:30, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if I'd entirely agree with your assessment although I appreciate it may not have been obvious. There is something weird going on with that page. I recognised the article and name, which was weird since he's an obscure former American football player, a sport I think is wack and don't follow in any way. I see now this is because it came up before Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive294#Douglas Chapman. At the time, there didn't seem to be anything particularly concerning.

    But since then, the article has had edits that admins have felt were bad enough to justify rev-deletion [3].

    Also I see now that even before the previous thread, someone has been adding uncited contentious and I suspect almost definitely untrue claims about their recent employment [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and a clearly untrue claim that the subject is paralysed [11] [12] [13] and utter nonsense [14] [15]. Given the relative obscurity of the subject, I guess this must be some person with a personal dislike of the subject targeting the article. (I recently dealt with what I assume is a a similar case on two sisters although in that case I suspect there's probably some personal connection as the people seemed ever more obscure.) I would include the blocked adder Special:Contributions/Marshall77 of the rev-deleted claims and Special:Contributions/SinclairCEO who did once add similar non attributed claims about the subject's recent employment as per my earlier links.

    The recent edits [16] are maybe the basis of something which could be in our article and in any case are not defamatory if true. But although a source was attributed for one claim, no inline citation was provided. And I have very strong doubts given the recent history that it is true. If not true, I would argue it is defamatory. I personally dislike using the word on wikipedia as it's rarely helpful and don't think it's useful here, still the OP may very well be correct. Definitely some of the earlier additions could be considered defamatory.

    BTW I noticed [17] which suggests to me the OP could be the subject of the article.

    Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    SinclairCEO has been blocked as a sock of Marshall77 based on an ANI report I made. Nil Einne (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne:, you have done sterling work here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kenneth Blum

    A SPA is trying to whitewash the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Added to watchlist. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Robin Steinberg

    On Robin Steinberg: The "Controversies" section appears to be poorly sourced and the subject of repeated attempts to re-add the material by a single-purpose account. Since I'm arguably INVOLVED as I've removed the content before, bringing here for review and possible administrative action. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 04:13, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jawar Mohammed

    Asking for more eyes on this. Not a whole lot of English sources. I've reverted a couple of times unsourced and poorly written additions to the article which seem to me not to be written from a NPOV. Hydromania (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Malcom Gladwell

    My query concerns a book by Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point. An editor has added this:

    "There has also been criticism of the basic claims of his book that the idea of a tipping point originates from epidemiology and a denial that there was any actual evidence for the central examples of the spread of the fashion for hush puppies or venereal diseases, together with the claim that the book has an underlying theme of racism and homophobia.[1]"

    Besides needing attribution, I'm uneasy about it as it seems to be accusing Gladwell of racism and homophobia, something not suggested in his article. However, when I looked at his article to find out, I found that the same editor, User:Napata102, had added "This claim that the idea came from epidemiology has been critically challenged.[2]" I can't see where Ladimeji is an expert on dynamics here[18] or in the deleted biography Dapo ladimeji created by the same editor. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC) [reply]

    References

    1. ^ Ladimeji, Oladapo. "Racism and homophobia in Gladwells Tipping Point" (PDF). African Century Journal. Retrieved 3 January 2020.
    2. ^ Ladimeji, Dapo (March 2015). ""Racism and homophobia in Gladwell's Tipping Point: Revisiting Malcolm Gladwell's 'The Tipping Point'" (review)". Retrieved September 1, 2016.
    African Century Journal looks to be Dapo Ladimeji's vanity project. Not a reliable source; no evidence of peer review; no evidence of use by others; essentially self-published. - Ryk72 talk 16:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Rose McGowan

    Persistent WP:BLP violations, so a more stringent level of page protection is merited. As well, mass rev-deletion may be appropriate for defamatory content. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

     Done EvergreenFir (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, EvergreenFir. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Marnus Labuschagne

    Really need more eyes, a mass attack re: long term addition of unsourced nicknames, mixed in with a mass attack of unsourced changes in statistics. I've requested indefinite semi protection. Can't keep up with the multiple IPs, and no intention of spending the night doing so. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cenk Uygur

    I need help with a sourcing issue on Cenk Uygur. I introduced an edit in the Political Views section that lists his current political views, and then source each political view with a YouTube video showing Uygur expressing the political view on his show The Young Turks. The edit has been repeatedly reverted by one user claiming there is a sourcing issue, leaving the comment "Entirely sourced to Young Turks YouTube, which is controlled by subject and lacks independent sourcing." In response I reference WP:BLPSPS which states "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Ultimately my argument is that when citing a person's political views, a video of the person expressing their political views is a reliable source. This appears to be backed up by WP:BLPSPS. Independent sourcing in this case doesn't seem necessary to me because the section is on Uygur's personal opinions, not what other people think his opinions are.

    Here is a diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cenk_Uygur&diff=934340944&oldid=931464513. Can anyone provide their input? Cacash refund (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've left feedback on the article talk page. IMO given the level of stuff you're covering, you really need some secondary sourcing to keep it. Nil Einne (talk) 11:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tulsi Gabbard

    Can a candidate’s self-published site be used as a source for information about themselves in their BLP as long as the 5 criteria in WP:ABOUTSELF are met? There has been disagreement among editors on this point. Humanengr (talk) 05:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If primary sources are disputed, e.g., "alternative facts" about the age, you could need a better source or a rough consensus. She uploaded a "Merry Christmas" video on YouTube, remotely related to the "multireligious" topic.[19] –84.46.52.210 (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx for that. Can you address this objection by one editor:
    ”The inclusion of the word ‘multireligious’ in the sentence ’Gabbard was raised in a multicultural and multireligious household’ needs to be justified by contemporaneous sources (of which there are none) and is not supported by WP:CS.”
    Humanengr (talk) 15:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting example. I guess you could argue it is to some extent " self-serving" per WP:ABOUTSELF. I'd be ok with it with a "According to Gabbard..." if there's no conflicting sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Be specific. We don't use self-sourced info if it's disputed by rs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not 100% true. If the BLP is responding via SPS to claims laid out by RSes at them as attempting to refute them (whether right or wrong about that), it is probably appropriate to include the BLP's SPS briefly to stay neutral. (something like "The NYTimes accused Smith of being racist, but Smith refuted this in a following Twitter message." sourced to the NYTimes' and Smith's Twitter) On the other hand, where the controversy is started by a statement from a BLP on their SPS, and RSes dispute that, its likely better to frame it from the RS and not use the BLP's SPS to start. ("Smith's claims on being non-racist have been refuted by the NYTimes" only needs the NYtimes sourcing). This should not be taken as a rule, but that there is sometimes need to do so. What we do want to avoid are the self-serving claims, those that attract no coverage at all by RSes. Including those, outside of standard factual biographical material, would be unduly self-serving. --Masem (t) 17:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Original responder addressed the situation where there is dispute from RS on a fact in a self-published source about self. I'll open another request on the more specific point. Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Christopher Beeny

    Persistent unsourced claims of death. I'm not finding any online corroboration. Page protection, user blocks or verification, any will work. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't find any obituaries or anything either. According to sites like livingordead.com, he's still alive, but I wouldn't use them as a reliable source. This is definitely a BLP violation, and I would suggest giving a stern warning of that to the user. We need a very good RS to pronounce someone dead. Unfortunately, I have no power to block or page protect myself. Because this is a user problem, you may get faster results at WP:ANI or WP:RFPP. Zaereth (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We've got a twitter statement by family. Really hope we can wait for something a bit more official. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think twitter is quite good enough. I know a guy who was disowned by his father, and if you asked he'd say his son was dead (to him at least). A good RS would be preferable. If true then the user in question may have personal knowledge of the subject and may have access to such a source. Even a local news obit will work; it doesn't have to be online. Zaereth (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    BBC, this should be resolved. --Masem (t) 19:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dilraba Dilmurat

    Persistent addition of the name DelRoBa. I am not seeing any source online that Dilraba = DelRoBa. Dilraba is a transliteration of an Uyghur name. 41.102.0.91 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Kostabi

    Mark Kostabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Bringing this here for review, an IP editor and a new user with one edit have both removed this content, with edit summaries of falsely sourced paragraph that is libelous and harmful and the new user claiming poorly sourced content which is misleading, harmful and libellous. I reverted both editors. I maintain the content is a significant life event for a BLP, reliably sourced, NPOV, he's well known, and has received sustained coverage through the years, 1991, 2004, 2010, 2012, 2018. Mentioned in this book as well. And the original article (June 1989) is still online, The Art Of The Hype, with a paid subscription. Should this content be removed or is it compliant with our WP:BLP policy? Left a note on the new user's talk page about this discussion. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hi there. My primary trouble is that you replaced the content prior to coming here, such disputed content would be better left out rather than replaced if discussion is needed regarding BLP concerns. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Judd

    Article I've created on a video game developer. He's recently been accused of some shady behavior. I'm mostly curious about BLP, tone, and neutrality. I would like imput from the greater community about these issues.

    Discussion:

    Sources:

    Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, the article needs some work. I'm not gonna lie, so please take this as constructive criticism. It reads like a diary more so than an encyclopedia article. I mean, it's nice and you've taken a lot of time and effort to source everything, and it's great to have it all in such chronological order, but it does read more like a timeline of events in a storyboard format than an encyclopedia article. And there are quite a few colloquialisms, like "higher ups" where "executives" would look more formal. And a little too much "he says" and not enough of what is said about him. The good news is that's ok, and is easily fixed.
    As for the paragraph in question, I'd say we have several major problems. The first is that our sources are op/ed columns from an editorial website. The second is that they are talking about anonymous blogs and tweets of people making unsubstantiated allegations. (I was especially amused by this line: "Another anonymous source had reason to believe the allegations, and suspected that their prominence prevented people from speaking up about it." I mean, really?) Third is that it is totally one-sided and doesn't give anything about his refutations like the sources do.
    Sexual harassment is a crime, and we shouldn't be throwing around such allegations lightly. The subject doesn't seem to pass WP:WELLKNOWN, and per WP:BLPCRIME it should probably stay out until there is a conviction in a court of law. But even if he did pass WELLKNOWN, we'd still need a lot more than a single report from an editorial website about admittedly anonymous and unsubstantiated allegations to warrant inclusion. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the additional paragraph in the "indie games" section should be removed, and only keep the brief first sentence, "In 2019, following reports of mismanagement and sexual harassment by Judd, he stepped down as CEO of Dangen Entertainment, and was replaced by Dan Stern". That sentence directly relates to his why he stepped down, and avoids some of the BLP concerns of the detailed paragraph. I don't think any mention of the sexual harassment is probably relevant for the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiroto Saikawa

    In the small biography of Hiroto Saikawa, there is a big section on Carlos Ghosn's arrest and how he is guilty of funds misappropriation. I have added a note saying that so far there is no evidence of his crime since no trial has taken place. The comment has been deleted but I have added it again. I now suggest that the whole paragraph on Ghosn should actually be removed, as it is actually defamatory. I do not see really why this should be included in Saikawa's biography.

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=935080599"