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 Jks144 (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 1 January 2021 (→‎Mindy Seu). 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:



    Lauren Southern

    Last week the article on Lauren southern made the claim that Southern had been accused of being a White Nationalist and Alt-Right, the page now claims she is in fact a White Nationalist despite adding no new sources, and in fact deleting her rejection of the label.

    Under Wikipedia guidelines "If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should also be reported."

    Gareth1893 made the edits to meet these guidelines today. Yet GorillaWarfare reversed Gareth1893's adjustment and removed the Sothern's rejection of the label White Nationalist despite it having a well trusted source (The Atlantic) and being a mandatory inclusion under the guidelines. Gareth1893 was then given a warning of ban from editing the page by BaconDrum if he attempted again.

    Making the claim that Southern is indeed a white nationalist while she rejects this and very few media sources accuse her of the label is defamatory. It also violates due weight to include this yet not include the labels conservative, right wing, far-right or even alt-light, which are named in far more media sources associated with the subject.

    Many of the details on this page violate Wikipedia policies either by commission or omission. The neutrality policy is violated in several ways. Mainly, there are details included more prominently than they should or perhaps included when they shouldn't be included at all. Other times vital details are excluded that would provide balance to the article.

    Policies on verifiability are violated on several occasions. Claims are made that are not backed by the cited sources, or any sources that can be found on the page. Sources are also used not discussing the subject whatsoever for the sole purpose of incorporating negative material, which constitutes prohibited "original research" under your sites policies.

    Page users such as Grayfell are obsessively editing the page to ensure it maintains a negative slant.

    The entire page is very problematic and does not meet the guidelines for living persons pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:E476:1E00:85D8:928:3EE6:28D (talk) 05:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a lot of discussion on the article talk page, including an RfC. It probably doesn't matter at all that she rejects properly referenced descriptions of her. At a glance, the content appears to be well-referenced. Maybe there are problems, but without clear and specific concerns, they are difficult to see. --Hipal (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The current intro sentence should be changed as it fails IMPARTIAL per the discussions here [[1]]. Starting off the very first sentence with subjective, negative descriptions of a BLP subject is something that shouldn't be allowed. Those are also descriptors that should not be in Wiki-Voice. To repeat what Masem has said many times, we need to start by saying what the subject is then how others describe them. Springee (talk) 19:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm unsure that this would apply to "conspiracy theorist" for this particular bio, however, because this is what she's most known for. The rest can certainly be relegated to later in the lead. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if she is best known for promoting conspiracy theories, we shouldn't be using value-laden labels in factual Wikivoice and lede off as soon. She can be described as "an activist known for promoting conspiracy theories" rather than "a conspiracy theorist" to be more impartial and neutral in tone. But obviously not to whitewash that facet away. --Masem (t) 19:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Springee, in this case, I'm not sure it does fail IMPARTIAL. In fact, I'm sure it doesn't. Mentioning that she promotes conspiracy theories is, in fact, impartial and NPOV. Regardless, the idea of not including a description-- that might also be seen as a characterization-- [but one that's shared amongst numerous reliable sources] has been consistently rejected by the vast majority of the community in the two dozen or so extensive discussions I've seen about this over the past year. That there's agreement to remove such descriptors amongst a tiny minority, who insist on it mostly in the realm of far-right politics (but don't apply it consistently elsewhere), is not persuasive. Your own proposals of "in the body, but not in the lead" for *any* controversy that the subjects are [primarily] known for (but not remotely a characterization, and thus exactly the sort of thing that should be in the lead), have been unanimously rejected by almost everyone. I mean no offense, but this is beating a dead horse at this point. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 16:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SA, your comments must be in reply to some other edit as I neither suggested leaving things out not said anything about body vs lead content. I don't believe I have ever said controversial material should only be in the body and certainly didn't here. I don't mind that we disagree but I do mind that you seem to have invented my position. Springee (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct, Springee. I was confusing your edits with that another editor, Bus Stop. I'm not sure why. You have my sincere apologies. Despite the case of mistaken attribution in that regard, I still maintain that the position regularly adopted by Masem (and that you seem to agreeing with here) has still been overwhelmingly rejected by a majority of the community when it's perennially brought up, and has likewise been discussed ad nauseum. Aside from the majority of those engaging in his points in those discussions generally rejecting the crux of the argument, most of the other editors who don't directly engage usually voice a viewpoint at diametrically at odds with it. I don't see anything wrong with attribution in most cases, but in the case of Southern, she's primarily known as a conspiracy theorist, along with voicing sympathy for the alt-right identitarian movement. It's actually almost wholly what makes her notable, and the sources aren't shy about expressing what she's known for, or characterizing her as such. In the case of where I said the majority of editors express a view contrary to Masem's position, this is what I meant: most editors seem to be okay with the long-established practice that, for example, a person known for the discussion and proliferation of conspiracy theories is directly called a "conspiracy theorist", in wiki-voice, if that's a consistent characterization in RS. Rather than using something more 'weasel-y' such as "sources consider". And while the example brought up in the Village Pump discussion is a bit different and subject to more nuance, I disagree with Masem (and I suspect most would) that calling a subject something which the subject actually is (whether a conspiracy theorist, a propaganda film, or whatever) is inherently a value-laden label, just because there's some vague and indefinable negative association with those terms in popular culture. It does, indeed, "water it down" when we cram in a "sources say" or "some describe it/them as" when there's general agreement amongst reliable sources (and rooted in common sense). For example, if 'so-and-so person' is primarily known for--- or even solely notable because of--- their promotion of white nationalism, then they're a white nationalist. And it's okay to say so. We don't need to say "some experts consider so-and-so to promote white nationalist views". The argument actually becomes a bit silly when you break it down to its most basic components, and replace the subject with a fictitious "so-and-so". If reliable sources often call a spade a spade, and even some of our most reliable sources characterize the subject, in all actuality, as a spade... Then so should we. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm phone editing for a bit so sorry if this reply is short. Thanks for your comment. We all make mistakes but not everyone is willing to admit their errors. I don't think Masem and I are a minor few arguing for a more neutral presentation. Certainly the discussion I highlighted showed a good bit of support. I'm not editing the article but I've started my position on it. Springee (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nathan Larson (politician)

    Nathan Larson, failed political candidate and former Wikipedia editor, has been [accused of doing a bad thing][2][redaction by Herostratus (talk) per BLP, we usually should only publish convictions. Sorry, just business, no criticism intended] Although the article title calls him a politician, he has never held office or won an election. The WP:BLPCRIME section of our policy on biographies of living people suggests that care should be taken if including such things in biographies of non-public figures. Is Nathan Larson a public figure? Mo Billings (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging by the refs, it looks like his political attempts have made him notable. Much of the article seems undue though. --Hipal (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 19:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To some extent, perennial candidates are still public figures if their candidacies are for high enough office. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a public figure in Wikipedia terms. He's not a deer in the headlights type case -- he's deliberately put himself in the public eye, indeed striven to, and gotten a certain amount of coverage just for that. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual says that makes him a public figure, particularly if (as here) it's not one single event we're talking about:

    A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention... Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile... Need not be a 'household name', simply self-promotional.

    (According to our article Public figure, he's probably a "limited purpose public figure" for legal purposes. However, we go with our Wikipedia definitions of terms, usually.) Herostratus (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: I do not believe that our BLP policy is intended to prevent us from openly discussing issues, especially if what we are discussing is including potentially damaging facts in a BLP. Nathan Larson has been [accused -- accused -- of doing a bad thing]. That is simply a fact. The question is whether or not that fact belongs in his article. Your redaction here is an over-reaction. Mo Billings (talk) 21:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I kind of agree that is is possibly a mediocre rule, but it is the rule, a policy rule -- and I'm particularly sensitive to it. For BLP purposes we treat article pages and all non-article pages exactly the same. Not sure if I agree we should, but we do. So....
    WP:BLP says -- indeed, leads with -- "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" [Emphasis in original, including emphasis of "any"]. WP:BLPTALK has more; my reading of it is that "accused of doing a bad thing" covers the question well enough without getting down into the particulars, which dissemination of that accusation would be harmful to the person's reputation. It'd be OK to point to the source without saying anything fraught here, I gather. In the case of your post, you would have to go dig up the ref and put it right there, or at least point to it, exactly the same as for an article. Sorry, but that is policy.
    And the person is not really very well-known. He does (easily) pass WP:GNG, and as having put himself in the public sphere he's probably no longer a private person. Still, he's not a United States Senator or anything. He's a guy who mostly nobody has heard of. That matters, I think. This article will probably rise to the top of his google results and thus present his main public face to the world... forever. A conviction, that'd be different -- maybe, depending on if it's central to his notability. If we change the lede to "is an American criminal..." it might be; otherwise, not to sure... I think his notability is around his political view and so forth.
    The Wikipedia has an enormous amount of power, and we want to be conservative about deploying it. Herostratus (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Herostratus: I suspect you and me probably feel the same about whether or not this gets included in the article, but we can't have that discussion if you're going to keep removing what we are discussing. Namely, the fact (not allegation) that Nathan Larson [redacted, accusation can be found at link]], as reported in many places, such as the NBC news link I supplied earlier. Please undo your redactions. I don't want this to end up at ANI, but that's our next stop. Mo Billings (talk) 23:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there isn't really any such thing as "we can't put such-and-such in an article, but we can do what we want here". WP:BLP makes this super clear. "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages" and "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts." and "The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages." and so on and so forth.
    WP:BLPTALK does say that you can say "This article [link] makes a pretty serious allegation about Dr Robert. Should we put it in the article?" and that's how you get around it. So do that, don't write things like what you wrote above because that puts it in our voice. And our stuff stays around a lot longer and is a lot more prominent than most sources. Maybe he did it, maybe he didn't. Maybe he'll be found innocent or maybe not. Maybe the charges will be dropped or maybe he'll plea bargain to a lesser offense. A lot of people get arrested who aren't actually guilty. But then it'd be too late wouldn't it.
    But whatever, if you feel strongly about it. I'm not going to redact what you wrote above, OK? I'm not going undo my earlier redactions, no, but if you want to, fine. If the, you know, 'BLP noticeboard doesn't care about this part of the policy, well, that's that I guess. =/ Herostratus (talk) 06:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have redacted, per WP:BLPTALK; the links are there for anyone who wants to know the matter at hand. -Nat Gertler (talk) 15:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLPTALK starts with "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced". This is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. It continues "not related to making content choices". This is a discussion about making those content choices, and in the place to have that discussion with regard to our BLP policy. BLPTALK does not say what you want it to say. Mo Billings (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    He's a public figure, but wasn't well known before. He's a lot more well known now. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dylan Taylor (executive)

    I would appreciate it if one or two BLP-knowledgeable editors would take a look at this article. I'm aware of what this person/business executive is doing in the space industry through the space holding company—Voyager Space Holdings (which redirects to his BLP page); and that company is notable in that industry—but it seems to me that the entire BLP for Taylor has a bit of a flavor of a CV or advert. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    At a glance, it looks like the work of paid editing or other conflict of interest. All the primary sources and associated content should be considered for removal. Same with press releases and public relations pieces. The references need fleshing out so that editors can review them easier. Refs from highly-specialized publishers should be given a careful review. Notablity is unclear in all the mess. --Hipal (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope someone who knows a lot more about BLPs then me will go over there and tag a bunch of the questionable stuff. This makes it much easier for mere editors (not BLP experts) to help eliminate fluff and advert stuff in another month or two if it is not improved. N2e (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Douglas Murray (author)

    Recently a large edit[[3]] was made to Douglas Murray (author). As this is a BLP several aspects of this edit concern me. First, is that I think two of the sources are very questionable, one appears to be academic but self published. The final is what appears to be a questionable use of a reliable news source. There are three blocks of edits in this one overall edit. The first block says the subject has been profiled as part of the Bridge Project out of Georgetown U. [[4]]. This appears to be self published and in the Murray article no secondary, RS is saying this is happening. The other source in the section is an Op-Ed published by Middle East Eye [[5]]. This appears to be a very small source so I'm not sure it could be used to establish WEIGHT for the claim. It also is an Op-Ed being used to say negative things about a BLP.

    The next edit block cites The Guardian but goes for a guilt by association angle. Effectively "Someone bad likes the BLP subject". My view is absent some sort of evidence the BLP is courting this "like" it should not be included. It is a guilt by association. A related claim sourced to IntelliNews is also included. Again, this looks like a question of DUE given the source as well as a question why this would be part of the Murray article vs some other article assuming IntelliNews is both reliable and can establish weight.

    The final block is sourced to Sludge [[6]]. Yet again I can't find good evidence this is a reliable source for negative claims about a BLP subject. The article in question is mostly not about Murray and relies extensively on appeals to emotion rather than simply reporting facts. It seems like a mix of facts with lots of commentary.

    I would like to get a few more eyes on this material. There may be some content worth saving but given this is a BLP it seems we need to err on the side of caution both in terms of source quality and DUE. Springee (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As I explained on the talk page, the Bridge Project at Georgetown University is not meaningfully "self-published", and especially not a WP:SPS as the term is used on Wikipedia. The project's director is John Esposito, who appears to be a credible expert in the project's field, and its directory includes four fellowships and several additional associates. First the source was "primary", then it was "self-published". This seems like shifting goal posts to denigrate a source based on what it says, rather than whether or not it's reliable on its own merits.
    The Sludge article includes many specific financial figures with direct citations. Dismissing this as using "appeals to emotion" is subjective and unsupported, especially when evaluated in context.
    Murray's article is currently incomplete in its selective coverage of his views and career. Factual information cannot be simply dismissed as "negative claims". Using supposedly unflattering sources is not a BLP violation, because Wikipedia is not a platform for public relations. Grayfell (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The expertise of the project's director is not a factor on whether or not a source is self published. From the About us section the group does their own research and publishes their own findings. This is the definition of a self-published source. We would need independent sources covering their content to include it on BLP's.
    The Sludge appears to be a 2 man show, as such has questionable editorial oversight. This source is at best a questionable source if not completely unreliable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is factually incorrect. The project's director is presumed to have editorial oversight over what the project publishes, and this is also published through Georgetown University itself. Therefore, there is no indication that individuals are self-publishing their work through this project.
    WP:SPS is not the same as WP:PRIMARY, which is not the same issue as WP:IS, which is not the same as WP:RS. If you wish to argue that this is somehow unreliable, you would have to make that case based on its own merits, but the standard you are applying here would disqualify all think-tanks, research groups, or academic projects. Grayfell (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What's factually incorrect about it? Whether or not something is self-published has to deal with if there are independent fact checkers verifying information. A research group publishing it's own findings is not independent of itself. You need an independent source to provide the independent fact checkers. --Kyohyi (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Based in part on the feedback here I've removed the material in question. If nothing else this discussion establishes that there is not consensus for including the material after discussions with 4 editors. Springee (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ibrahim Miri

    The article included unsourced claims about crimes, including human trafficking. There are other unsourced claims but those are definitely potentially libelous so I have removed them. There are possibly other issues with the article, but I am new and don't really know BLP rules well. I'm going to post on the talk page there as well, that it needs a better level of citations. All sources are in German, so ideally someone with a better level of fluency than I do should check those (I can understand basic written German with effort)

    Cheers Xurizuri (talk) 08:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Running a google translate, a lot of the citations do not mention him specifically just his gang, but at least one does.[7] I'm questioning whether this meets WP:DUE or whether there should be a standalone article about him outside of Miri-Clan. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I found some other articles on him specifically: [8] [9] are on his deportation and asylum requests; [10] is a summary of his immigration/deportation + miri family; [11] is an English article that covers his deportation and his crimes. I still question whether this is a reasonable article, but WP:CSP does state to be careful about removing articles about non-English subjects. Also bc these sources are all from german/euro outlets I don't have any idea of their reliability, anyone have any familiarity with Merkur, NDR, Kreiszeitung, or DW? Xurizuri (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Accidentally deleted section from List of Columbia University alumni and attendees

    This is regarding the List_of_Columbia_University_alumni_and_attendees#Activists article. I added Mabel Ping-Hua Lee to the section under Activists, but in so doing I somehow made the entire Activists section disappear. I can still see it when I click on "Edit," but it isn't visible to the public anymore. Can you help? SarahPinho (talk) 19:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)Sarah Pinho[reply]

    It was the parameters on the links, the (usually unnecessary) bits after the question mark. Woodroar (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Maria Bartilomo

    This is totally inflammatory. This needs to be removed. Falsehood and conspiracy theories have been debunked. Wikipedia is totally on the left and not neutral.

    In 2013, she joined the two Fox channels.[2] During Trump's presidency, she moved considerably rightward and became a cheerleader for the Trump administration, as she gave Trump frequent softball interviews and amplified Trump administration falsehoods and conspiracy theories.[3][4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.84.233 (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that there are two sources (Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Post) being used to support the statement being presented so we need more info on what the problems is. Is the argument that they are bad sources, good sources that are being misused, or that other reliable sources disputing what the sentence says are being ignored. I would note for the record that according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources both of the sources being used are considered generally reliable.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Adele Yoshioka

    This article on the 1960s TV and film actress (e.g., in Magnum Force) and management and activist in recent decades was deleted twice without proper discussion or proper process. It has been replaced with Coalition of Asian Pacifics in Entertainment.

    How is this possible? Isn't the standard protocol to involve prior notice and discussion?Dogru144 (talk) 04:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RFC at Talk:Amanda Kloots

    There is a current RFC debating the inclusion of Amanda Kloots's son's name that involves BLPNAME concerns. Interested editors can directly comment there.[12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    I have also removed the name of the son per BLPNAME from Nick Cordero, although that has been reverted because of WP:STATUSQUO, ignoring WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pierre Estève

    The article reads like an ad for Pierre Esteve, not like a wikipedia article, is full of personal experiences etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.232.34.197 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    James_B._Harris#Lolita_rumor

    Apparently there is a new rumor that the producer of the film Lolita slept with the 14-year-old actress playing the character of Lolita. Can someone take a look at this for BLP concerns? -- GreenC 17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just removed that section. I've never heard of Air Mail, the only source used in that section [13]. I don't know if it's reliable or not, they claim to have some experienced editors from established publications, but they don't actually say who they are, and in general their About Us doesn't inspire a lot of confidence [14]. In any case, I think to make accusations like this against living people, we'd need much stronger sourcing than a single article in a recently established weekly newsletter. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, airmail.news is not a newsletter which connotes self-published, more like a New Yorker style online-only magazine, the writers are known professional journalists, academics and book authors, it has editorial oversight, and is $10/month not cheap. The issue I saw was the accusation came from a friend ie. a rumor, and we have only heard it one time in one source. Given the seriousness of the accusation and a BLP I thought it ran close to the line. Probably best to remove it to be safe, he is likely to die soon anyway (in his 90s) and his obits will determine how much weight this story carries. In the mean time the article will require monitoring. -- GreenC 14:03, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Laura Coombs

    Laura_Coombs_(designer)

    The sources provided on the biography page do not establish notability of a designer

    Reference 1, 3, 4, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 only offers only a few words about the designer

    Reference 5 repeats itself— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks144 (talk • contribs)

    That may be so, but that's no reason to remove correct categories. Vexations (talk) 21:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone ahead and AFD'd the article due her questionable notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed

    The subject (commonly known as "Farmaajo") is the current president of Somalia. Another editor is insisting that the sentence "The deposed Somali president Siad Barre was Farmaajo's uncle" appear in the opening paragraph. On the article's talk page, I've presented my case as to why the sourcing of the uncle/nephew connection is questionable ("Somali Dispatch" appears to be self-published, as are a couple of medium article's, the only sources I've been able to find mentioning that relationship). Numerous other global sources (BBC, AfricaNews, AllAfrica) do not mention any familial connection in articles that mention both leaders. On the talk page discussion that I started, the other editor does not appear willing to compromise on the wording or placement of the statement, which my gut says in an effort by opponents of Farmaajo to discredit him. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seconded. Even if it is true, if reliable sources rarely mention it then it doesn't belong in the opening paragraph. While this is under discussion I am going to remove it from the article as it violates WP:BLP. Rublov (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Robin Dyer

    Robin Dyer

    This article reads like it was written by the subject, someone very close to them, or someone paid to write a biography. There is very little in the way of cited sources, and seems like mostly opinion and/or spin to deflect from the current problems plaguing the school they run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.40.239 (talk) 06:37, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The uncited assertions have been removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Oleksandr Yefremov

    A deprecated source is being used to support a quote about a conspiracy theory, potentially libelous, about another living person. Possible #4 WP:BLPREMOVE issue? Amigao (talk) 00:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, definitely given WP:UNDUE also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Can Yaman

    [15] This article has been produced by Turkish tabloid press and does not reflect the true and final legal outcome of the reported case and hence produces fake and defamatory information about Can Yaman. The placement of this article has been shared with Can Yaman's legal team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.101.139 (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This article has been generated by tabloid press and doesn't not reflect the final legal outcome of the case and hence presenting defamatory information about Can Yaman. The presence of this article has been reported to his legal team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.101.139 (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1. All content contained in the “Controversies” section is factually incorrect. The sources relied upon are documentary hearsay (unreliable by their nature) and self serving. The latter arises due to the undisclosed close personal relationship between the author/s and/or interviewer responsible for the source and Selen Soyder.

    2. Proceedings concerning Mr Yaman and commenced by Ms Soyder are confidential and subject to a non-publication Order. Publication of their content is a contempt of Court.

    3. Publication of the inaccuracies referred to in [1] and continued reference to the proceedings referred to in [2] give rise to several potential causes of action including but not limited to defamation and contempt of court.

    4. In all the circumstances and for the reasons stated, it is submitted the “Controversies” section together with its entire contents must be permanently omitted from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.29.62.21 (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This looks like a legal threat. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. 2 and 3 especially. Also, unless you request oversight and get it approved, the information isn’t "permanently" deleted. It still exists in the page history forever. D🎉ggy54321 (happy new year!) 01:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ignoring the legal threat for the moment, are the sources unsuitable? There are four in that section: T24, NTV, Hürriyet, and Sözcü. I don't read Turkish but these all seem to be reliable sources, based on their Wikipedia articles. If the content in them doesn't support the content in our article then that's an issue, but like I said, I don't read Turkish. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 01:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The information does seem like tabloid gossip even if true due to his celebrity status. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    nicole fisher

    Apologies, there is no violation, but I happen to be the subject of a page and my name changed months ago. It just occurred to me that Nicole Fisher should reflect Nicole F. Roberts. Is it possible to update the title/name to reflect who the page is about? Is there a way to verify my marriage and new name? Thank you for any guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.232.127 (talk) 22:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any reliable sources like newspapers or journals that report on your changed name? The latest articles I can find, today even, still refers to your maiden name. [16][17]. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Forbes changed my name: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleroberts Company I work for changed it: https://www.hhrstrategies.com/about.html The NYPost link to President Trump retweeting Nicole Fisher is not of me (Nicole Fisher Roberts). It's of Nicole Alexander Fisher — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.200.232.127 (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry for the confusion. The reason I asked is that, generally, the title of biography articles on Wikipedia is the name by which the person is best known. If you would like to request the change, please write an email to info-en-q@wikimedia.org so that the appropriate people can verify that it is indeed you that is requesting the change. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Olivia Cooke

    181.169.227.109 (talk · contribs): This IP is repeatedly adding unsourced content to Olivia Cooke's article. Their talk page shows they have been warned about it multiple times before and already received a level 4 warning from another user in April. Their contribution history shows they almost exclusively provide edits to Cooke's article, and have repeatedly been adding unsourced content regarding who she is dating for months (diffs in April: 1, 2, 3, 4; in August: 5, 6; in September: 7, 8; in October: 9; in December: 10) and on one occasion with an unreliable source (diff 1). They have also occasionally added the content to two of the three alleged boyfriends' articles (diffs 1, 2, 3). Can they be blocked? Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Park Yoo-chun

    Hi

    I would just like some editors to run through the talk pages that I have added 20footfish is me. I have done some edits based on being impartial. I had started as a wikipedia editor back in 2007 and did it for a few years but not for a while. I have run through terms and conditions and added new titles to this article, amended grammar and am looking at a couple more changes and I would love a second opinion, someone who would be able to confirm that I have done the right thing here. I am comparing material on Bios for other celebrities and ensuring that the uncited info like subheadings remain impartial and as fair. Consistency from Wikipedia is always good. Can anyone second on my talk that they are happy with my reasons for changes?20footfish (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Gunnar Kaiser

    person is object of permanent insult; some weeks ago he was described as "narcist" in the personal introduction; permanent try to put him in the right-winged corner - what is a bad joke for everyone who knows his work; permament try to brief against him by "guilt by association", with detailed descriptions of interview partners but ignoring the fact that he also works with the other edge of the political spectrum; seems that he won some enemies due to his own very independent political perspectives and that these people try to insult him in any way that is possible. Please keep a watch on this article for the sake of neutral reports on critical political minds - that especially we need in open and pluralistic democracies these days. Cheers! Prinzvonzavelstein (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nico Tortorella

    Hello.

    User:Red Echidna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has persisted over multiple days in attempting to remove they/them pronouns from the Nico Tortorella article.

    Diffs here:

    Warnings:

    I've also tried to explain to them repeatedly that singular they is completely acceptable at Wikipedia (especially in terms of respecting BLP subjects' own pronoun choices) on my Talk page, but they persist in denying this to be the case.

    (another editor has since reverted their pronoun changes but I suspect the problem will remain unless Red Echidna has explained to them by someone more "official" than me) —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there,

    User:Joeyconnick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has repeatedly changed and vandalized the Nico Tortorella article, utilizing a preference for slang words and incorrect usage of mechanics. The resulting errors are antecedent-pronoun disagreements.

    Objects

    Warnings

    We have tried to explain to him what the errors are, but JoeyConnick persists in the view of prioritizing slang use. The article clearly states and explains what the topic's favorite pronouns are. However, we have again tried to explain that for an encyclopedic entry slang is not appropriate, likening it to an opinion-piece, that impartiality is the priority, and that his grammar and mechanics have made the article appear informal, elementary, and riddled with errors. If someone else could perhaps explain or review from a neutral standpoint, as JoeyConnick has displayed a lot of hostility. I have also tried to be diplomatic by giving an option of correcting either the antecedent or the pronoun, explaining that the numbers cannot be mismatched, which is how it presently stands. Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I would just like to add that, in addition to the hostility displayed, JoeyConnick has repeatedly resorted to the use of aggression and anger in his responses and correspondence with me and the other editors. He continues to make use of ad hominem attacks, demeaning replies, and mocking my statements. I try to be as objective as possible. Please take this into consideration, as it is extremely difficult to work with someone who belittles another and resorts to injurious responses. Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 07:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:GENDERID is unambiguous about using a subject’s self-stated pronouns. Is there any guideline or policy reason this article should be an exception? POLITANVM talk 07:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. The consideration should be made that such an action is prioritizing subjectivity over objectivity. We should aim to be neutral and strive to remain a reliable source of information. Presenting information with errors in an encyclopedia brings our standards down and reduces the quality of our articles. It should also be stated that the subject's self-stated pronouns are in the entry itself. There are many reliable and validated guidelines on correcting pronoun-antecedent disagreement, such as https://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/pronante.html https://webapps.towson.edu/ows/modulepaa.htm and http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/agreement_pa.htm Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia Manual of Style would take precedence on Wikipedia, rather than other institutions’ guidelines. Nonetheless, it’s easy to find counterexamples that singular they is common, acceptable, and correct, including Merriam-Webster, the Chicago Manual of Style, and APA. If you believe the Wikipedia MOS should be changed to exclude singular they, it’s probably best to take that up on the MOS Talk, though I don’t think it would be fruitful. POLITANVM talk 08:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is so bizarre. Britannica and other encyclopedias have put in place stringent standards that follow grammatical rules and mechanics. In addition, APA and MLA both lay out the proper formats for avoiding pronoun-antecedent disagreement, so I'm not sure where you're seeing that. Merriam-Webster only reflects the current trending use; it does not indicate correct mechanics. Are we to assume that Wikipedia doesn't follow English grammatical rules? For example, if pronoun-antecedent disagreement is acceptable, are things like double negatives, misplaced modifiers, fragmented sentences, or subject-verb disagreement also acceptable? Also, should we not have more editors who are unaffiliated and neutral weighing in on this? Thank you. RedEchidna (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Both APA and MLA explicitly support singular they for people who use it as their personal pronoun. While their style guides aren’t relevant to Wikipedia, perhaps their pages can help clarify how singular they is correct in this context. Additionally, I am neutral. All I’m referencing is Wikipedia’s Manual of Style. POLITANVM talk 08:43, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I just meant more neutral editors reviewing this instead of just one or two, those who are possibly third-party entities. Saying that it's following the Wikipedia Manual of Style is like referencing a tertiary source as a primary source. There's a systemic bias in that. Additionally, I have the APA manual, and in order to avoid pronoun-antecedent disagreement for a singular subject 'it' or 'he or she' are the appropriate terms. In addition to that, none of the scientific review boards who use APA style accept pronoun-antecedent disagreement, so another conflict. I appreciate your assistance and your willingness to help. Thank you again. RedEchidna (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:GENDERID is a manual of style guideline on Wikipedia and all editors are expected to follow it. Intentionally and repeatedly misgendering article subjects is a BLP violation as well. Woodroar (talk) 12:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Politanvm and Woodroar's comments above. I'd also like to flag another issue with the article which is of significant concern from a BLP perspective. Mixed in amongst the reverting over pronouns have been repeated edits to replace the term polyamorous with polygamous in the description of the subject's relationship. The source states they are in a polyamorous relationship, not a polygamous one.[18][19][20][21]--Trystan (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nithyananda again

    After a year or so of comparative calm, the BLP Nithyananda has been re-invaded both by haters and by devotees. This week, it's mostly followers clearly working in concert to whitewash, last week or so it was mostly detractors trying to dwell on allegations. This article needs more experienced, neutral editorial eyes and brains on it. The WP:SPA tides are not relenting.

    PS: At this time, I'm just asking for additional watchlisting and input from WP:HERE editors, not seeking to open a BLPN thread about this (and someone else on the article's talk page has suggested opening such a thread at another noticeboard, I think WP:RSN, but I'm skeptical that would help much because the problem editors are basically all newly arrived "throw-away" accounts).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've had this on my watchlist for a while. I've upped the protection to ECP due to both the BLP issues and the disruptive editing. Doug Weller talk 19:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mindy Seu

    Mindy Seu

    This article reads like it was written for self-promotion. It lacks sufficient citation for most of its material, references predominantly coming from university profile pages that are given too all students and faculty. The rest of the cited sources do not establish notoriety. There is no evidence of established design practice nor significant new ideas presented in the field of graphic design.

    Biography on Aaron Coleman is overly hostile against him, giving massive amount of time on criminal allegations rather than his accomplishments or statements on them

    While the subject of this page, Aaron Coleman, is quite a controversial figure who has done questionable actions, this page has been written in a way that is clearly hostile to him. I do think the sources are legitimate, but mostly negative information taken out of the sources without the other parts. I believe that the rules of Wikipedia biographies are being violated in multiple parts:

    Balance

    The page mostly talks about recent scandals of Coleman, while neglecting anything positive about him. Three out of the five sections of his article talk about scandals, and have far more information attacking Aaron Coleman for them than the article discusses his life, political campaigns or his statements on them.

    Accusation of Crime

    Not only does the article take a negative tone regarding Coleman, but frequently neglects Coleman's denials, his reasoning for them and the lack of convictions in many cases. For example, "On December 8, 2020, Kathleen Lynch, a Wyandotte County, Kansas judge, issued an anti-stalking order against Coleman after Brandie Armstrong, the campaign manager for Frownfelter, accused Coleman of sending her harassing messages, showing up at her home uninvited twice, and attempted to get her evicted." there is no statement from Coleman, no information that states that it was temporary and clearly slanted against Coleman.

    Tone

    The article is clearly written in a passionate tone against Coleman, while using loaded language and giving undue weight to recent events. For example, "supporting abortion up to the moment of birth" is clearly loaded and could easily be made in a neutral tone of "supporting abortion". When attempts were made to fix loaded language like these, the user most active on this article replied, "Wikipedia is not whitewashed.".

    Overall, the article is improperly written in an inappropriate way toward Coleman. Almost none of the sources cited have a negative tone as dark as this article and this place seems to be more of a dark list of allegations than a biography about a person.

    Orange1861 (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)Orange1861[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=997548152"