Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Robert Tombs and History Reclaimed

Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d and I have had a respectful exchange at Talk:Robert Tombs about the second paragraph of the History Reclaimed section.

Tombs is the editor of History Reclaimed, a website created by a "group of anti-woke scholars" including Nigel Biggar, Zareer Masani, and Andrew Roberts, among others. The website describes itself as "an independent and non-partisan academic organisation ... composed of historians ... dedicated to historical research to expand knowledge and understanding about the fundamental changes surrounding our country."

Reception has been mixed, with right-wing tabloids such as the Daily Express supporting this retaliation by those academics against the perceived wokeism of Black Lives Matter and anti-racist movements. University professor of history Alan Lester commented that while activists may get details wrong, they get the bigger picture right, and Reclaiming History "believe themselves to be marginalised and gagged", despite including at least one CBE. Carlos Conde Solares, a senior lecturer in Spanish history at Northumbria University, wrote that it "purports to defend the positive legacies of colonialism whilst ignoring the contributions to civilisation made by European nations other than Britain."

References

Everything is properly attributed and written by two university professors of history. It is not coatracky because Tombs is the main figure behind the website as editor, and if we are going to have a section about it and include the POV of the website, we should also include its reception and the views of Lester and Solares, who gives secondary coverage for Lester and the Daily Express. They should be removed,1 however, if they are self-published because they cannot be used in BLPs, even if written by experts, per WP:SPS.

Notes

1. They have already been removed, and I did not edit war about it and simply took it to the talk page. Davide King (talk) 12:22, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping, Davide King. I'm fine acknowledging that Tombs is a member of History Reclaimed but adding an entire paragraph on the reception of a topic thats tangentially related to the subject seems like a pretty standard case of COATRACK to me. This is especially true considering the fact that the 3 sources include 1) the WP:DAILYEXPRESS 2) A blog on a university site (While Lester may be a subject-matter expert, WP:BLPSPS still applies), and 3) A single, passing mention of Tombs on something called North East Bylines.Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to your for you response and respectful tone. Just to make one thing clear, I am not not actually using the Daily Express as source but Solares did mention it and summarized the website's reception as mixed. I added a direct reference to Lester for context and verification for the quote but all of that is supported by Solares, so I think the self-published claim no longer stands. It may mention Tombs directly only once, like the other scholars, but I think it is still clearly relevant if we are going to discuss briefly Tombs' project. I think it would be better if we could get thoughts from other users, or admins, which is why I took it here. Davide King (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

No one is going to posit or comment on this? I do not doubt that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d may well be right, and their arguments are good and can certainly respect them, but it would be good to hear more analysis, thoughts, and achieve some consensus. Davide King (talk) 11:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it, perhaps this is better for, or should be discussed also at, RSN. This noticeboard says: "Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period." Davide King (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

charles gasparino

Charlie Gasparino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

citing a dna report should not be in the bio describing ethnicity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.169.49 (talk)

Kristen Stewart

On the Kristen Stewart article there's been repeated controversy about whether or not to include statements of her mother's heritage. At least two users contest adding this (one believes the cited ancestry is negligible and another believes information about the subject's mother should not be placed on the page.) The source of this is a YouTube copyright violation as seen in the diff here.

Personally I am of the view that controversial information about Jules Stewart should not crowd up Kristen's page. I'm hesitant to remove the information myself due to inexperience and possibly inciting more arguments. Should this page be further protected after the violating video is removed? Cinematic Maniac (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

The source is unacceptable and the reinstatement was improper if they are arguing that talking about family is WP:ABOUTSELF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure why there's controversy. Kristen Stewart went on The Howard Stern Show on November 5, 2019, which is one of the biggest radio shows in the United States, and discussed elements of her recent family background. The text in the article reflected what she stated (her mother was adopted by a Jewish couple in California, Norma and Ben Urman, in 1953; a DNA test showed that one of Kristen's biological maternal grandparents was Ashkenazi Jewish).

That's it. What she said hasn't been questioned or disputed in the media, and it's not an exceptional claim (primary sources also back it up as being accurate). What she said can also be literally heard and seen by anyone who'd like in the video linked. If that website is a copyright violation, then the link itself doesn't have to be included. This discussion isn't about the specific link, for me, at least (which has now been removed by Cinematic Maniac, anyway, along with the text). It's about the text and the fact that Stewart plainly stated it on a platform with an audience of millions. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 11:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The Howard Stern Show is in no way a reliable source nor its interviews to be putting WP:UNDUE emphasis on. People can lie, and there's no fact checking in the interview. Further, WP:ABOUTSELF restricts claims about third parties. It's not a hard concept. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

This isn't a comment Stern made, or something. Of course the subject of an article giving an interview on as public a forum as Stern's show would be a reliable source for the subject or their background. I'm not sure where "people can lie" comes from - you're saying a person stating a fact about their background in an interview can't be used as a reliable source about that person? That certainly is very extreme, and it isn't the standard on Wikipedia. Unless otherwise disputed in the media (i.e. Elizabeth Warren, Ward Churchill) such statements, unless exceptional, are presumed to be true. (and in this particular case, everything Stewart said is backed by primary sources anyway) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

This may not be completely acceptable to either side of this debate, but I would humbly suggest that the statement in question (or some version of it) be preceded by "According to Stewart, her mother ...". A video of Stewart saying something is a perfectly acceptable source that she said it. I don't think a brief statement by Stewart is a WP:UNDUE problem; the article is about her, what she does, what she thinks, and what she says. Many Wikipedia bios base the ethnic or national heritage of the person on what that person reports. What the person reports may not always be 100% verifiable, but if it's reliably sourced that they said, the words that they say cannot be disputed. Sundayclose (talk) 02:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

If this were a newspaper, I would agree with you. As an encyclopedia, I think we need to let the newspapers and other secondary sources do that sort of investigative journalism. Otherwise it becomes sort of a Pandora's box where people can just cherrypick the quotes they like, look for those gotcha moments (or overtly self-serving moments), and other things that we shouldn't be doing ourselves. The problem with weight comes with the source itself, and we cannot really give much weight to an unreliable source regardless if it's "proof" that someone said something. Talk shows can be edited and narratives created out of soundbites from interviews that have no relation to what was really said. (Not saying that's the case here, but it's a staple of so-called reality TV., and many other things. It's a big reason we don't use youtube as an RS.)

In my opinion, it's far better to let the RSs do the journalism and decide which quotes are relevant or gives the gist of it. Zaereth (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying interviews can't be used as sources about a person? Interviews are the sources used for the background/personal life of most contemporary actors. Hard-hitting investigative journalism isn't often involved, nor required (and there's absolutely no "out of context" issue here, nor has anyone suggested one). And the Howard Stern show has an audience of millions of people, which makes it much more prominent than almost any interview or article published anywhere. What confuses me about this situation is why. What is the motivation? Stewart herself said it as clearly and publicly as possible, primary sources back it up (her mother's birth record, her adoptive grandparents' marriage record, etc., all cited on the article talk page), no one in the media is disputing it; it seems like the most cut-and-dry situation. So what's the point of all of this, exactly? Why was "people can lie" ever used in this discussion?

@Sundayclose I wouldn't be opposed to "According to Stewart..." All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:29, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, but I come down on Zaereth's side here. It's WP:ABOUTSELF but draws in other people, and I am not that concerned about outright lying, but garbled recollections, repetition of spurious family legend, etc., are all theoretical possibilities. Do people approach an interview with Mr. Stern the same way they might with a major newspaper? I have my doubts (with no offense intended to Mr. Stern). All in all, it just doesn't seem worth it to me. As ever, if consensus is against me, I will not kvetch! Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

The question is not one of whether or not it is true. It's more of a question of who cares? That's what weight is all about. We have to summarize the sources, which means cutting out many of the boring details. Someone always cares about this detail or that, for whatever reason, it's important to them. But is it important enough to everybody else that we should include it? Our measure of that is a fairly mathematical one, where we simply weigh the sources against each other, and apportion everything accordingly. If no one in a RS thought it was worth covering, then it doesn't carry nearly as much weight as stuff RSs thought were more important. It's a big part of how we keep info like trivia out of articles on celebrities, and other things like OR.

So, why is this so important to you? If the adoptive parents are possibly still alive, we shouldn't be naming them unless they themselves are notable enough for their own article. Otherwise, why should this information be important to the general reader? In Wikipedia, the answer to that question is mostly a matter of weight. Zaereth (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

In thinking about it, I think DNA is a good example of something an RS should really discuss. Ancestry tests are a great example of the commercialization of science run amok. For example, you breed two dogs, one black and the other tan. The pups rarely will come out a perfect mix of the two, like a dark brown or something. Rather, some may be black and some tan, and others bi-color, saddleback, or any mixture of the two. Some may come out white for some unknown reason. I took a DNA test, and mine came back mostly Scandinavian. My brother took the same test and found out he's mostly Irish. According to our lineage, we're both Welsh. The thing about DNA is that we know know so very little about it still to this day, and you go back just 20 generations and you have over a million great, great, great grandparents. Zaereth (talk) 03:26, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Being adopted is a "family legend"? Adopted parents are noted all the time. Family members like parents and siblings are noted by name all the time. This isn't WP:otherstuffexists, it's WP:otherstuffcorrectlyexists. (ps, we don't actually have to name her grandparents, who are deceased, by the way; I don't think the specific names were the point of contention, anyway) I think much of this is an extreme interpretation of various policies. As for DNA, people who test out 24% Ashkenazi Jewish tend to have an Ashkenazi grandparent. In the early 1950s, when her mother was adopted, most Jewish couples adopted through Jewish adoption agencies that matched them with babies that were born to Jewish mothers (and sometimes fathers, as well). So, her mother was born and raised Jewish (almost certainly born to a Jewish mother, given the DNA test). Of course, I didn't put those particular details in the article, only what Stewart herself stated (which went unchallenged for nearly a year, by the way). Reporting what someone says - especially in a public outlet to millions of listeners - is certainly following WP:BLP. This is the BLP messageboard, after all, and I don't see how reporting what the subject of the article themselves stated is a violation of at least that policy, unless there's some kind of dispute between living persons over a set of facts, and we're choosing one side over the other, and there's nothing like this here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I maintain my objection, subject to consensus, of course. WP:ABOUTSELF specifically says no claims about third parties, which we have here. And "family legends" can be about many things; while I doubt the inherent nature of an adoption would be subject to such a "legend" (for lack of a better term), the circumstances thereof very frequently are, in my limited experience. The offhand nature of the remarks continues to give me pause, and I think the article is better off without this particular bit. Cheers, all, and Happy Holidays. Dumuzid (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider such close relatives as "third parties" on which they should not be trusted. I.e., when someone says, "my husband's name is so-and-so," "I have three children," "I have a brother named Steven," such statements tend to be used as sources (and should be) unless disputed or implausible. No commentary is made about the 'circumstances' of the adoption. In any case, Stewart's mother's family background is also Stewart's, by definition. I wouldn't consider the remarks offhand, either; they were plainly stated and in lucid detail. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

That's fair, but I am afraid we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. All the best. Dumuzid (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Ben Francis

77.96.159.195 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

An anonymous user has been repeatedly restoring (most recent diff linked) a "controversy" section consisting solely of a mention of drug use by the subject, as cited to dubious sources. I and at least two other users have been reverting this editor on the grounds of WP:BLPREMOVE. --Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is fully verified and sourced material with a clear video of the person in question using drugs, and so does not fulfil the grounds of being removed due to WP:BLPREMOVE - there is no reason why it can't be included on the article. The video in the source is definitive proof of what I added to the article, regardless of how 'reliable' one may claim the source to be. There is no reason to keep removing sourced and unbiased information from the article - it is counter-productive, and goes against the purpose of Wikipedia as an entity and institution to expand the knowledge of mankind. Don't remove sourced information just because you don't like what it says. 77.96.159.195 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

IP you seem confused about Wikipedia's purpose. While "Wikipedia as an entity and institution to expand the knowledge of mankind (sic)" may not be inaccurate, this does not mean we published anything and sundry. There are a lot of things which while obviously true, will never be on Wikipedia and for reasons that don't specifically have to do with be doubt over truth. For BLPs an important one is ultimately WP:UNDUE. Information has to be significant enough for us to cover. If other reliable secondary sources do not cover it then generally we do not either. Clearly no one else cares about it, so we don't either no matter how sure we are it is true. In this case, the Daily Mirror is a secondary source, but for BLPs cannot be considered reliable and so definitely does not establish the significance of this claim. If the Mirror and the video are your only sources, then this information will rightfull have to stay out. It does not matter how sure anyone is that it's true, that issue does actually arise even here for a variety of reasons but I'll put that aside since it doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Carly Simon was born in 1943 ... NOT 1945

Birth records prove she was born in 1943:

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=4431959

Name: Carly Simon
Birth Date: 25 Jun 1943
Birth Place: Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA
Certificate Number: 21212

She claims 1945, but IMDb and Goodreads list her true age:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800089/

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/173740.Carly_Simon

Those are not dispositive, but the birth record is.

Her sisters Joanna Simon (October 20, 1936) and Lucy Simon (May 5, 1940) are also older than their Wiki pages say:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/census-1940/T627/NY/m-t0627-02644/m-t0627-02644-00830.jpg

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3992145

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3832907

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2048095/

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800254/

WhatsTheTruth00 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this is here. The identical point about Carly Simon was raised on the article's talk page by this user five months ago, and was responded to by user: Binksternet.This is a case of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If WhatsTheTruth thinks there are now sufficient reliable sources available to justify the change shouldn't this be on the article's talk page first? Meters (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And now the user has opened an RFC on this on the talk page, Talk:Carly Simon , so why have it in two places? Meters (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

OP indef'ed for BLP vios. Meters (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Illeana Douglas was born in 1961 ... NOT 1965

See the 1979 Opticon yearbook for Haddam-Killingworth High School in Higganum, Connecticut; she is pictured on page 105 as a graduating senior:

https://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Haddam-Killingworth-High-School/82172?page=105

Several online sources list her true year of birth:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001152

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/10803955.Illeana_Douglas

https://www.peliplat.com/en/library/celeb/pc12638550

https://www.cinemaclock.com/stars/illeana-douglas

http://douglashistory.co.uk/history/illeanadouglas.htm

https://www.myagecalculator.org/famous-birthdays/actress/how-old-is-illeana-douglas/

WhatsTheTruth00 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

As for the previous thread, the user has now opened an RFC for this issue on the article's talk page, Talk:Illeana Douglas. Meters (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

OP has now opened 6 similar RFCs or threads, most without any prior discussion, but has been blocked for BLP vios. See Talk:Carly Simon, Talk:Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano) , Talk:Lucy Simon, Talk:Illeana Douglas, Talk:Penny Marshall, and Talk:Garry Marshall. Meters (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Supposed real name and birthdate of Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter)

Many sources (mostly tabloids and unreliable blogs) have talked about the supposed real name and birth date of Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter) (not sharing here per BLP, but it can be easily Googled if you wish to know). The only sources that might be OK that reported this are The Tab, Manchester Evening News, and HITC, but I'm still wary of adding it unless Francis says so himself or a more reliable source comes out with it. There's also a few, also mostly unreliable, sources reporting that he is or was a music producer. There's been a lot of IP addresses attempting to add the real name/birthdate to the article, so this is why I'm asking. Thoughts? wizzito | say hello! 12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The DoB would need to be widely covered in reliable sources to be included, so if you have to dig and search to find a couple places it's covered in reliable sources it probably shouldn't be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

And a YoB needs a WP:BLP good ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this a BLP violation?

[1] It’s mentioned in Tracy Stone-Manning but I’m not sure it belongs in Eco_terrorism. Doug Weller talk 19:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Besides being a poor source for politics per WP:FOXNEWS, the cited article stops short of labeling Stone-Manning an eco-terrorist herself, so I'd say it's definitely inappropriate for a section titled "Individuals accused or convicted" of eco-terrorism. clpo13_(talk) 20:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes. The sources in Stone-Manning's article do not discuss the incident as a eco-terrorist accusation or conviction against her. The source used in the Eco terrorism article is Fox News, and it's not reliable for the claim. I haven't reviewed the list of "Individuals accused or convicted", but its title seems like a magnet for BLP violations. Firefangledfeathers 20:09, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

The editor User:Viktory02 who added the label keeps edit-warring the term eco-terrorist into the BLP even though the sourcing doesn't substantiate the term.[2] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi I've added additional sources as requested. Describing this as an "edit war" is disingenuous. Is Tracey Stone-Manning an Ecoterrorist? Well, she was never convicted so she would not be considered one. Has Tracey Stone-Manning been accused of being an Ecoterrorist? Yes. Viktory02 (talk) 22:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

An edit I have promptly undone as the sources are quotes from those upset with the subject's confirmation. Slywriter (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

That is the entire basis of an accusation. Also many of the same quotes are from individuals who opposed the nomination to begin with. Viktory02 (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The low bar of opponent's mudslingling should NEVER be the standard for a BLP article. Especially mudslinging covered in overtly partisan publications.Slywriter (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

John McDougall

I see that Wikipedia is proud of providing neutral information. Therefore the biography of John McDougall (nutritionist, physician, author, speaker, etc) should be seen as the shameful, prejudiced character assassination that it is. It's difficult to read such concentrated misinformation, but I remember some statements like: creator of fad diets, that cause malabsorption of minerals from too much fiber, cause flatulence, and there is no scientific evidence for his diet -- which is a simple low fat vegan diet. There is, of course, a wealth of scientific evidence from innumerable scientific studies to support a low fat vegan diet, and John McDougall has been an important pioneer in real nutrition research -- a glance at any one of his several books will settle the point. But the authors of this Wikipedia article seem only interested in attacking McDougall for their own personal reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.7.201.97 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: John A. McDougall  melecie  t - 13:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems a bit odd to post here if your beef is with the description of the diet (not the description of the guy). If there truly is "a wealth of scientific evidence" relevant to this diet product, then bring the sources forth. The high-quality sources cited at the moment say it's just another fad diet, with some downsides (too much farting e.g.). Alexbrn (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Shark Boy

It seems that an independent wrestler has been editing Shark Boy's Wikipedia page to impersonate him. You can see in real time as the person updates things as he realized he missed something that would make it inaccurate, such as Shark Boy working in a company while the vandal was a child/age/championships/DOB. There also had been a brief reversion to the original name of the performer, before the same person changed it to different information about himself

The Dean Roll article from September seems to be the largely accurate one(barring a few procedural link updates and the bit about him appearing in 2019). I just didn't know where to exactly put this or how to properly revert the article, let alone point out that someone seems to be using Wikipedia to impersonate a minor celebrity, and possibly make money off their likeness as they are masked and their face isn't widely known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.139.53.227 (talk) 03:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

This is a really strange case! I've reverted to this revision as essentially an emergency action -- this is a particularly severe sort of BLP vio (I don't think I've seen anything like it before -- anyone else?) and it needed to be dealt with pronto. That revision isn't in fantastic shape and is throwing up a few ref errors from the 2020 CS1 updates, but it credits the right guy, so it's an improvement. Vaticidalprophet 03:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Robert Evans

I am the subject of this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Evans_(writer)

It was created independently almost a decade ago and has since been added to by various editors. I wanted to tidy it up as it was a mess structurally, so I paid an editor to re-format it. The editor did not rewrite the page and there was never any issue with what it contained prior to this. But since reformatting it has been totally shredded by others editors who have applied warnings about its neutrality and that it contains a paid contribution.

How am I supposed to get rid of these warnings and ensure it adheres to Wiki's guidelines if I cannot pay someone to change it? I totally respect that it should be neutral and am very happy for it simply to contain facts. But if I can't remove these arbitrary warnings is there a way to just delete the page entirely? I feel this is most unfair as it has a direct impact on my career when potential employers search for details on me and find a messy page like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheTypistTypes (talk • contribs) 13:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

You could use the Talk page perhaps? request an edit sorta thing. -Roxy the dog. wooF 14:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Evans. First, I want to thank you for disclosing the paid editing. We typically frown on that sort of thing. As a writer, I'm sure you're familiar with criticism, so I'm just gonna lay it out straight. The article, in it's current state, sucks. It reads like a combination of a resume and a place to plug your works. And I know this may not necessarily be your fault if it was created and edited by other people, but you should definitely fire the editor you hired and demand your money back, because their additions make it far worse. For example, we usually don't report on things that will happen, or write in the second person, or speak as if were talking within the moment (like saying "now" or "two week ago"). Things like that just confuse the reader. Similarly, if your structural changes consist of removing the italics from every title, that is also something that should not be done. That's common style, not just by WP:Manual of style, but by most every other such as Reuters or Chicago Manual of Style. It lets the reader instinctively know we're talking about a film or TV show, rather than an actual person named Stella or Sadie. Writing nonfiction is a hell of a lot different than writing fiction.

As Roxy mentioned above, the proper way to make changes to your own article is to request on the talk page that others do it for you. (See: WP:Conflict of interest policy)

I think your idea of deleting the article is a good one. I checked the sources, and while a few mention your name (a couple even multiple times), all of them are really about this show or that, and all they say about you is that you wrote it. That makes for a great resume, but not for a biography. We have zero in the way of biographical info on you. Even worse, the sources are low-grade and questionable, and the good majority of sources --don't even mention your name at all-- and I have no clue what they're doing there. This to me looks like a perfect candidate for deletion. The alternative would be for you to pay a real PR rep to do some real PR work outside of Wikipedia. Get your name out there. Do interviews with reliable sources, and give us something we can work with, but do it from out there. I hope that helps Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

George Kurtz

The article about George Kurtz mentions two children by name. Since the children are minors, are not notable, add no value to the article, and are not covered themselves in any reliable high-quality secondary sources, could an editor:

• Change the first sentence of the Personal life section to simply read as "Kurtz is married to his wife, Annamaria."
• Remove the children number from the infobox

WP:BLPNAME notes that "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons" and the subject of this article would prefer that these non-notable minors are not mentioned in this article. I would make these two edits myself but I have a financial conflict of interest related to the subject of this article, which is why I am raising this for other editors to evaluate and implement as you see fit. Thanks, JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The source was wildly inappropriate for naming minor children, so I removed it. I also removed his wife's name, as it's now unsourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, much appreciated. -JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Kate Bottley

If someone was born in February !975 as stated by wikipedia for Kate Bottley, their age as at December 2021 is NOT 48 - please check your calculations! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:36B8:3F00:E400:C74D:183D:85EF (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I removed the DOB entirely as it was unsourced. Per WP:DOB it needs to be widely covered in secondary sources to be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note to the IP, I wonder if you may have seen something wrong or alternatively saw the age somewhere outside Wikipedia. Prior to SFR's change [3] the article used a template which automatically calculates the date based on the person's age and it's been like that for at least 6 days. The age displayed by this template should have been 46 as shown here [4]. It's impossible for any of us to know what the specific cached version you saw had, however whywhile MediaWiki and especially the WMF's specific hosting can be quarkyquirky at times, I'd say it's unlikely an error of this sort occured. It's possible there was some vandalism or a bug in the age template, I didn't check the history but it may be more likely you didn't see 48 on our page. Nil Einne (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC) 03:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Sustained WP:COATRACK behaviour, regarding edits made at this article concerning living people. Thank you. starship.paint (exalt) 09:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maridhas Malaichamy

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maridhas Malaichamy. Venkat TL (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

2000 Fijian coup d'état

There is a whole nest of articles surrounding the 2000 Fijian coup d'état that are entirely unsourced, and contain allegations that living people have committed various crimes. I have removed some of the BLP violations, leaving behind nearly empty articles like 2000 Fijian coup d'état, and prodded others, like Aftermath of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état. The biggest offender I've seen so far is Trials since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état, and I have done nothing with that. But this is a way bigger problem than I know what to do with myself. Any help or suggestions appreciated. GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There's an active edit filter that stops large edits by new users (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter/30), but doesn't seem to care whether or not they're sourced, maybe an additional filter that does this could help? Aaronlearns (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

My mistake, the filter only prevents large deletions. Either way, I think there's a filter that can remedy a problem like this, maybe something having to do with adding an unsourced claim to an article that has no sources. I'll start working on a filter request.Aaronlearns (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's a list, from the navbox. I have not checked all of these.

• Timeline of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Mutinies of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Aftermath of the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Investigations since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Removal of Ratu Mara, 2000
• Alleged plot against Ratu Iloilo, 2000
• Trials since the 2000 Fijian coup d'état
• Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit Court Martial, Fiji
• 1977 Fijian constitutional crisis
• 1987 Fijian coups d'état
• 2005–2006 Fijian political crisis
• 2006 Fijian coup d'état
• 2009 Fijian constitutional crisis

GA-RT-22 (talk) 01:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, @Davidcannon: appears to have created many of the subarticles from the 2000 coup (but back in 2005) and still is a somewhat active editor. Pinging to see if they want to supply input here. --Masem (t) 02:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like this was all in good faith (and likely true), just that there was no official sourcing. According to his page, most of the work he's done on Fiji was 2004-2006, I wonder if sourcing on Wikipedia was different back then. Aaronlearns (talk) 03:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Some of these articles do have sourcing, 2006 Fijian coup d'état is especially thorough. I'm not terribly familiar with BLP guidelines, but I suggest you take a look through the user's bio, and the reason for his work on Fiji. I think deleting this article (as you proposed) is a little extreme, and I won't request a filter, but I think he'd be happy to clear things up. Aaronlearns (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I do note that some of these have the same three sources at the bottom. Yes, they should be inline cites and with more specific referencing (page numbers, etc.) but I won't call them outright uncited. But the number of sub-articles is definitely not needed. --Masem (t) 03:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Those three "sources" were all added just a few days ago. @Mhatopzz: Were those intended to be sources? Sources normally go in the References section. Did you actually check that all of the content of all those articles is verified by those three sources? GA-RT-22 (talk)

Yes, I did read all of those book, some of its content of the three books refer to the coup. Mhatopzz (talk) 13:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC+7)

So you did not verify that the books support everything said in all the articles you added them to, correct? GA-RT-22 (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Even if general references support, BLP requires in-line citation for controversial facts. The references may mean the article is notable but the content would still need to be stripped and technically should already be stripped of BLP violations until supported. Slywriter (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Dave Scotti

He is now known as Davy Garlo. According to Screen Actors Guild, YouTube, IMDb, his Webpage and related articles, he lives and works as DAVY GARLO. I emailed him as Davy Garlo, and he responded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoJinx (talk • contribs) 13:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)