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.

Jim Goetz

First thing, I should disclose that I represent Mr. Goetz. And while I recognize WP:BLPEDIT permits direct editing to remove unsourced information, we still prefer to bring questions to the community and avoid making COI edits.

The issue in question is the infobox, which lists a spouse and children. No source has been provided. Even if one can be found, WP:BLPPRIVACY indicates that the "standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified". I believe the circumstances here warrant its removal.

Other than these infobox listings, the article is otherwise entirely focused on his business endeavors. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE suggests to include "only material relevant to the person's notability" when the person is not well-known, and indeed Mr. Goetz generally keeps a WP:LOWPROFILE. He has not held a leadership role at his VC firm for several years, and grants few interviews. In fact, a columnist for the Missoulian of the same name has many more Google News hits.

For these reasons, I'm requesting an uninvolved editor to consider removing the mention of spouse and children from the infobox. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the unsourced spouse and children from the infobox. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I really appreciate it, thanks very much. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 19:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

And thank you for coming here exactly how you did. Too few do. I've watchlisted the article as I'm sure some others here have and will do. Again, thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 04:02, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi again ScottishFinnishRadish and JFHJr. A few days after our discussion, another editor, Edwardx, edited the page for the first time to add information about Mr. Goetz's marital status and number of children, which of course I had made the case for removing. I reached out to see if they would reconsider, although they declined, stating the material was properly sourced and uncontroversial. I understand this view, although my interpretation of BLP policy is that when family members are not public figures and they have no relation to the subject's Notability, the subject's wishes for privacy on these details should be observed. As always, I will not directly edit the article, but I hope I can contribute usefully to the matter in this thread. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The argument can be made that disclosing the names of Mr. Goetz's children and spouse is violating WP:BLPPRIVACY, but mentioning that he is married and the number of children may be of interest to readers and appear to be public information. I don't know if there is a policy violation per se. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with noting the marriage and the number of children, while leaving out the names. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Have added a little more info from Goetz's own page at Sequoia Capital and his NED page at Intel. All standard stuff that our readers would expect for any business bio here. I have very extensive experience on business BLPs over many years, and this being my first time editing the article should be a positive. As an experienced volunteer, I can be more objective than someone who is paid by the subject. Edwardx (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I accept I am not going to prevail on this point. Still, I appreciate the time everyone has put in to respond. So I have a different question now. Mr. Goetz is in fact no longer married, although there are no secondary sources confirming this. What's the best course of action? (I can provide the case number to locate relevant the court record; perhaps this is something to contact WP:VRT about?) I'm reminded of the recent Emily St. John Mandel situation (see: cheeky Slate interview, lengthy talk page discussion) and I'm hoping this has a simpler fix, even if just removing the marriage reference and leaving the children. Very interested to hear what you all think. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, WWB Too. It is disappointing that you are drip-feeding us, rather than being full and frank at the outset. Also, Goetz appears to live in Miami now, rather than Los Gatos - will you be you asking for us to change that too? All I can find when searching for "Jim Goetz divorce" is a page on UniCourt (looks like a scraper of primary source data) that he "filed a Family - Marriage Dissolution/Divorce lawsuit" in November 2021, and "The case status is Pending - Other Pending." Are they actually divorced, or just separated? The general rule is that we go with what is published in reliable secondary sources, Forbes in this case. Perhaps you or Goetz could contact Forbes to ask them to update their page? Edwardx (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Edwardx, I'm sorry you feel this way. As noted above, Mr. Goetz prefers to keep his private life private, even as his business career has made him a public figure. Since his marital status and children are not relevant to his Notability, my hope was that others would agree it didn't need to be here at all.

Regarding Forbes: because it was accurate for the time, I think it unlikely they will change it. That would be asking them to make information incorrect there; I think it would be preferable to make information correct here.

FWIW, the court record can be found via the Santa Clara county superior court website by searching the case number 21FL004073; it is not detailed, but it is apparent the matter has been carried through to its resolution. I think it is possible I could obtain a copy of the decision itself, though it would be inappropriate to share on a public page, hence my suggestion about reaching out to VRT. Any thoughts to add, ScottishFinnishRadish or Kcmastrpc? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:31, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Forbes is one of their numerous undated profile pages, not an article, so it is a simple matter to request an update. Please see Contact Information. The Santa Clara site is down. Edwardx (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @WWB Too, your best bet will likely be going to VRT or getting Forbes to update their profile of Mr. Goetz. While I have no reason to doubt your claim, this is a sensitive subject where policy has not been changed even with the Mandel kerfuffle. I was not able to load the case number you provided either, but even if I could, I believe I would be reverted if I made that edit with the court document as the only citation. -- Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

For some reason, I too am having trouble with the superior court website this morning. Odd, it worked fine yesterday. As for Forbes: the profile is from the 2020 Midas List, as the page says just below the short biographical sketch. The text is not evergreen; the last line mentions that he joined the Intel board "in November", meaning November 2019. In any event, like Ms. Mandel, I realize this is sort of thing Wikipedia's verification standards make difficult. Thanks for your time, and I will explore my options with VRT. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

So the subject of a BLP requests that unsourced non-notable information be removed from their BLP citing privacy concerns, and then we go out of our way to find a source to make sure it stays in the article. Wow. Leave it out. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. No amount of additional sources will make this relevant. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Shellyne Rodriguez

On Talk:Shellyne_Rodriguez, one user suggested reporting the Shellyne Rodriguez article because it needs mediation. That's true now. And next Monday (Aug 14), she has two court hearings, so depending on what happens in those two courts (on one day!), the article may need even more mediation next week.

The issue (from my perspective) is that the honest efforts of Reliable Sources to cover a news story that the Unreliable Sources dishonestly created with a cell phone camera are doomed to failure. Honestly reporting someone's dishonesty repeats their dishonesty.

As someone who taught at CUNY colleges for 16 years, I read both the Reliable and the Unreliable Sources with an entirely different perspective.

I'm curious to hear yours.

Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 03:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That article has and had serious problems. I've removed a lot of content [1] as it was sourced to unsuitable sources especially primary sources like court documents, exam schedules and Students for Life America. Even some of the secondary sources were used in an almost primary source like fashion and they are also not reliable sources like New York Post and Fox News. I left in the use of New York Post in one paragraph that I saw because the rest of the text doesn't make much sense without it but the article needs to be re-worded to only cover what has been reported in reliable secondary sources, not anything that is solely sourced to primary sources or other unreliable sources; so that paragraph needs to be fixed to remove anything relying solely on NY Post as a source replacing it with anything that was reported on secondary sources and removing it where it's not covered. To be clear this includes anything coming directly from the video or anything about what the reporter was told or said which is not covered in reliable secondary sources. In other words, we can report the machete incident but we have to be careful to only report the details on that which we covered in reliable secondary sources. Probably the text can be simplified to how a NY Post reporter approached her at her home and she threatened them with a machete and was fired or something of that sort. Note that while you are free to read unreliable sources for your own interest, they are of very little relevance to what we should cover in our article whatever you perspective. If there is new material from secondary sources tomorrow we can cover that as it happens but we cannot rely on primary source, unreliable sources and editor WP:OR in the meantime. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Yes. You noticed the issue. On the one hand, the rest of the text does not make sense without the NYPost article. On the other, the NYPost manufactured the narrative. A pamphlet-splilling is not newsworthy. Why were journalists covering this "news story" at all?

And now that anything Prof. Rodriguez says "can and will be used against her in a court of law," she cannot tell us her side of the story. Instead we all have to wait for a judge.

So given the inevitable one-sided nature of any writing about what the NYPost did, it would be better to just delete the whole "Legal issues" section than to exclude information necessary to her public defense. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to note that User:Eryk Wdowiak may have a conflict of interest. They have tried to synthesize a narrative using uploaded screenshots from the university website. It appears Wdowiak works for the same university system as Rodriguez. @DMacks: any thoughts about this? Thriley (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Concur with possible literal WP:COI, or at best a massive WP:NPOV fail. Self-described attempting to Right Great Wrongs and help get the word out or provide a different side or weight of perspective not based on published reliable sources. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Do you not see that the BBC re-reported the NYPost's story before ABC7? The British Broadcasting Company reported on events in Manhattan before the American Broadcasting Company's channel 7 in New York City. Look at the dates. The BBC reported the NYPost's story on May 24. ABC7 reported it on May 25. I propose a return to 1776. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: "I propose a return to the Spirit of 1776." Before historians remind me of what happened to the Americans who defended Fort Washington in 1776, I wish to make clear that I prefer the Americans' triumphant re-entry into Manhattan in 1783.  ;-) Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

As Eryk Wdowiak has repeatedly thrown around loaded terms and has now explicitly said we should make an editorial decision to "help Wikipedia avoid a defamation lawsuit",(edit summary) I have issued an NLT warning. I don't think this specific one actually crosses the bright line, but has the appearance of chilling intent. DMacks (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This from the man who talks about "your behavior." What I said is that editors like you, DMacks, have made contentious edits that may cause Shellyne Rodriguez to take legal action against Wikipedia. For balance, I included some positive, well-sourced information about her in the article. It was quickly deleted.

I find it a shame that you cannot say anything nice about her. Instead of pointing your index finger at other people, maybe you should look your own other fingers pointing back at you. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's the comparison. Between 01:39 on 01 Aug and 20:31 on 09 Aug, DMacks and his team removed everything that Prof. Rodriguez could use in her defense, citing "policy" as the reason. That's not policy. That's defamation. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

That is utterly absurd. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Articles aren't evidence. What is or isn't in an article here has no bearing whatsoever on anything 'Rodriguez could use in her defense'. And I'd strongly suggest you drop the 'defamation' crap, before someone decides you are stepping over the line into explicit legal threats, and blocks you. Trying to win content disputes through such tactics doesn't work, and it would be a desperately poor day for Wikipedia if it ever did. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Her legal defense? I am certain that her attorneys have 1000 times more information than we do.

I'm talking about her public defense -- the one in the court of public opinion. If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law.

And again, why do certain people here find it so difficult to say something nice? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

And for what it's worth ... While editing the article, I read every single source. After taking an honest look at all the information, I found myself admiring Shellyne Rodriguez.

I hope you all will admire her one day too. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the above further reference to "a court of law", I have started a thread regarding Eryk Wdowiak's behaviour at WP:ANI: [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I was looking back to my experience in journalism and remembering the advice that my editors gave me. It's very simple: "If you damage someone's reputation in the court of public opinion, you will soon find yourself a defendant in a court of law." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Eryk Wdowiak has now been blocked indefinitely. Could I ask those experienced with WP:BLP policy to take a look at the article though, since we need to treat this with care. I've removed a citation of the 'Students for Life' YouTube video, as it didn't seem appropriate, and anything of relevance was cited to secondary sources. Further editing may possibly be necessary. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

The third paragraph of the "Hunter College videos" section should be rewritten to not directly cite the New York Post at all. If the details of how the incident allegedly played out can be attributed to more reliable sources that assessed the Post's claims, then those sources should be used; otherwise they should be removed. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:37, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed with Tamzin. As Eryk pointed out before they were banned, the story was run on ABC7 which I would consider to be a relatively reliable source. That said, it's regrettable that other news sources didn't run it (I can kind of understand why), and the only other sources I can seem to find through Google search are all advocacy/opinion sites. Cheerio, ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:25, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, there's no way to get an objective writeup of the situation as the only witnesses on either side are biased. All we know for sure is that "journalist" from a far-right new source was harrassing a "left-wing" public figure, and she responded with violence. Right-wing sources are naturally going to spin it as if she was unhinged, completely ignoring the harassment, left-wing sources are going to push the harassment angle despite the fact that the only two people who know the degree of the harassment both have an incentive to lie about it, and centrist sources are going to muddy the waters of the issue, as they always do. 208.87.236.201 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

With all of the censorship here at Wikipedia, the public will never learn the truth. 173.251.122.2 (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I wish to report that the IP editor, or someone closely associated, appears to have sent a harassing email to at least one, and presumably many of my work colleagues, from an anonymous email address. (Among other things, they do not understand page protection, and are asking someone from Slovenia to advance the same edits as Eryk Wdowiak.) Is there anything that I should do? Apologies if this is a little offtopic for WP:BLPN, and perhaps advice should go to my talk page. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

See your talk page - best not to discuss this anywhere public. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Ferdinand Topacio

Ferdinand Topacio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This series of edits appears to have removed some potentially problematic content but also added some new problems back in. I reverted but it needs a scrub. VQuakr (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi. Much of the edits I added in the article are properly referenced to trust-worthy nees sources. Why remove them all? You also removed the part where Topacio is a lawyer of former PH president Estrada when it's also all over PH newspapers and it's a general knowledge as well. What's not general knowledge is Topacio being a singer and the subject's alleged links to several showbiz personalities which are sourced only to gossip YouTube videos. Access Control Allow Origin (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I restored a section that you removed because it is properly sourced. You also have to explain why you have to remove the part stating that subject is also a lawyer of former president Estrada, saying it is unsourced/uncited when it is already provided in the "Cases handled" section with proper citations.

Access Control Allow Origin (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Ken Carson lead image

Ken Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could someone please take a look at the lead image in this article and it's associated caption. I view this image as a violation of the WP:BLPCRIME and WP:MUGSHOT policies, as the image is a police mug shot, labelled as a police mug shot, for an arrest that did not result in any convictions. The image therefore, in my view, inappropriatley implies that the subject of the article is a criminal, despite the article containing no sources suggesting he has actually been convicted of anything. I don't think the mugshot is really appropriate as a lead image at all, but I'll wait for other people to weigh in on that.

I have twice edited the caption quoting relevant policies, and have been reverted twice by second skin, once with no explanation, once with a personal attack while logged out. I left a notice and a CTOP alert on their talk page, which they reverted telling me to "fuck off", so I am asking someone else to have a look at the matter.

It may be worth having a look at second skin's BLP edits more generally, because with a quick look there appear to be recent instances of them adding material to articles which is unsourced [3] poorly sourced [4] or not actually supported by the sources they provided [5]. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 20:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

It appears @Meters has reinstated my caption edit while I was writing this. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with your edit summary, and your reasoning. We should not mention that this is a mugshot. In fact, if possible I would suggest that we replace the mugshot with some other free image. Meters (talk) 20:54, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Meters Per WP:MUGSHOT I think having no image at all would be more appropriate than having a police mug shot in this case. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

As currently presented, it's not very obvious that this is a mugshot, but of course the subject and probably many others would be aware of this. There is however an alternative [6] that can be cropped and used instead, which may solve the issue. Per WP:MUG I think that would be preferable. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

(ec) As it is there is no explicit mention that this is a mugshot, but the reverted edits have been attempting to add such a mention to the caption (see [ for example).

There are other issues with this article. We cite no sources for his birthplace, birthdate or full name, for example. Meters (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm going to say that the IP that reverted the OP a third time, after User:Second Skin had done it twice, looks very suspicious as well, as it has also edited articles in the same niche genre as Second Skin.

• 20:48:46 SS tells the OP to "fuck off"
• 20:50:15 IP 162.191.155.51 reverts to re-include the mugshot text with the editsum "search "Ken Carson arrested" on google it's the exact same image you idiot"

• Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

I had warned the IP for that revert and summary. I have to say that I also found the timing and the tone suspicious. Meters (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Lead image replaced with File:Ken_Carson_Rolling_Loud_2023.jpg, uncited birthdate removed. Meters (talk) 03:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Moshe Bar (neuroscientist)

Moshe Bar (neuroscientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article presents an almost identical situation to that of Shrawan Kumar shown above. That entry received excellent advice from Zaereth, but that advice was based on that article being a draft. My question asks, would that same advice stand for articles already in mainspace? The Moshe Bar article is already WP:N, but 60% of the references are to the subject's own work (Bar is a notable expert in their field of study). A COI editor has been working in good faith to improve the article, but a large portion of the content they wish to retain (shown in their Edit requests on the talk page) are still referenced by the subject's own work. I've made suggestions to the COI editor that their aim should be to drive down that percentage, but their responses have been a mixture of "I'm afraid I see no good independent secondary sources" and (I'm paraphrasing here) "let's just keep these references now and let others improve it later." I want to re-iterate that the COI editor has been extremely cordial and pleasant throughout all of our interactions. And while I feel that the outcome here is a forgone conclusion, I also feel that the COI editor might hear this much better coming from a group of editors rather than just myself, so I'd appreciate any feedback that can be provided in this forum. Much thanks for your time! Regards,  Spintendo  06:14, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Spintendo, as the COI editor here, let me just clarify also that (as I believe you would agree) the problem you mention is almost entirely concentrated to just one out of the current four edit requests for that article.

And with regards to the latter edit request, I have also made the point that I believe it is a substantial improvement over the existing article, although the source issue from the original article remains in that edit request.

Hence, I guess the question here is if any COI edit request has to resolve all issues with the corresponding text in the original article, or if resolving some issues is enough to be considered for publishing? All the best, Urbourbo (talk) 08:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you as well, for commenting here too. I would agree with you that the requests that you've made have been beneficial in incrementally moving the article towards a better state than it currently is in, and we all appreciate that. I felt that even though I had mentioned the references needing to be reduced, they still stayed at a level of around 60% even in the newest edit request. Because of that, I thought an abundance of caution might be warranted since that seemed to be a sticking point that would be more difficult to get past in my review. No one doubts the importance of the subject's influence in his fields of study, that's not the issue at all. It's just that there's so many of them in the request that I thought the input from others would be helpful here in moving us to—what I think you would agree with me is—our ultimate goal, the removal of the article's maintenance tags.  Spintendo  11:10, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again Spintendo for your efforts in this review. No problem at all with bringing in other views, and fully agree that we share the goal to ultimately remove the maintenance tags!

Whereas I can understand the remaining issue you see with the third of the current four edit requests, my hope would be that at least the first two current edit requests could be considered for publishing in their current states, given that those edit requests are already referencing multiple independent sources (compared to zero notes in the corresponding text of the current article) and that there are only two Bar-authored references in the first edit request and zero in the second.

All the best, Urbourbo (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

And just to clarify for editors following along, what Urbourbo means when they say the four edit requests, In order to keep the request manageable they had split the entire article into four sections and then submitted each section separately on the talk page under different headings for the two of us to work on during the review, to keep it tidy. Regards,  Spintendo  14:27, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Urbourbo: does your COI access allow you to disclose a date or even just a year of birth? We like those for biographies, and prefer not to have to wait for the obituary! If you can disclose a date or year of birth, I think it would be fine to edit the article directly solely to add this on behalf of the subject. Please include an edit summary that states "COI edit. Subject birth." And I doubt anyone will take issue. Then, keep subsequent info, requests, and discussions on the article talk page. Sound doable? JFHJr (㊟) 03:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @JFHJr:, I've made the same reflection but unfortunately I haven't been able to source this. Do you think it would be OK to add unsourced? If so, I'd be happy to ask if Bar would be willing to share this information with us. Best, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Coming from you, I'd be fine with it, unreffed. I assume good faith for this addition. Your source is apparently the subject. As long as your edit summary states it's a COI edit. If another editor challenges it, they should produce a better source. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do some work on academic biographies here. I would suggest two things. 1) I see that JFHJr has cut down the publications etc section. I would suggest restoring the books (but not the book chapters, possibly excepting the Oxford Handbook chapter), which perhaps Urbourbo could provide ISBN numbers for. The ISBN gives a reference that the subject has published the book, and I think that books are generally weighty enough to be worth including. It might be appropriate to include, say, the top 3-cited papers from Google scholar in a "Selected papers" section, but not much more than that -- what was there was certainly overlong. 2) I agree that the long primary-sourced research section is inappropriate. A paragraph or so might be sourced to the subject's webpage (a secondary, though not independent source) per WP:SPS, if not unduly self-serving. I see, however, that the subject does not currently have a research description on his webpage -- a lab webpage would be a more appropriate place for most of the current article than Wikipedia is. Alternatively, the "Recent popular press coverage" section that JFHJr (appropriately) removed might be used to source some fragments of a Research overview. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

A long list of publications is undue when no unrelated source indicates any biographical importance or significance. Perhaps the top 3-5 would be helpful to a casual reader. Readers can also search Google scholar themselves to find a complete list. This is not a résumé even if this subject is THE preeminent scientist of his field. JFHJr (㊟) 17:24, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you about long list of publications. Books tend to support WP:NAUTHOR, however, and there are only two of them. It would be even more worth including them if book reviews (the acid test for NAUTHOR) exist. Perhaps Urbourbo knows of some book reviews? I would tend to include the handbook chapter, as those chapters are relatively high visibility works (although they may not get separately reviewed). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the résumé tag, assuming the unduly weighted publications list doesn't appear. If it reappears, please consider replacing the tag. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

JFHjr I can't begin to thank you enough for the help that you've given with the article, I really appreciate it. I think these changes look great, and I see that the citation needed tags that are left in the article coupled with your advice here and the advice from Russ Woodroofe are all helpful in that they show the COI editor where their next steps should be in improving the article. Thank you all again so much. Regards,  Spintendo  02:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Welcome! I also removed the COI header tag because no COI edits jumped out at me since 2018. It was stale. There's no tag needed when COI editors approach the talk page in an honest, upfront manner. Just having their requests and input doesn't merit the ugly tag. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for doing that, and for all your help and Russ's too. Regards,  Spintendo  04:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreement from me as well here, thanks everyone for your efforts towards cleaning up and improving this article! Just a note with regards to my edit requests. Those for the first two sections I believe are both still valid in their current states as far as I understand, and I will therefore take the liberty of re-opening them now. I'd appreciate any feedback on them specifically, perhaps easier in connection with each on them on the talk page? All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Russ Woodroofe:, for his book Mindwandering, a quick googling reveals there are reviews published at least in The Straits Times and Psychiatric Times. Which other book were you referring to? I'll be happy to revise my edit request for the publications lists to a much shortened version along the lines of this very helpful discussion. All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe: Now done, hope this works better! All the best, /Urbourbo (talk) 14:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC notices

Samaire Armstrong has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.

Malik Zulu Shabazz has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page.

Louis Farrakhan has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. gnu57 01:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC) gnu57 01:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It would have been better for you to have raised the BLPCAT issue here once you had been mass reverted on your mass changes rather than RfC every article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Background for other editors that GNU removed disputed categories (Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States, Anti-black racism in the United States, Antisemitism in the United States) from 30+ BLPs with explicit references to BLPCAT, (User contributions 12:06, 12 August 2023 to 12:48, 12 August 2023) and Beyond My Ken mass reinstated them without addressing whether there were BLP issues (User contributions from 00:33, 13 August 2023 to 00:45, 13 August 2023). Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that Genericusername57 made mass category deletions without seeking or receiving a consensus to do so. How Wikipedia's policies are interpreted is completely a matter for the community to decide, and for4 that reason, mass deletions or additions of any kind require a WP:CONSENSUS to be legitimate. Deletions made without such a consensus are subject to being reverted until the issue is decided by the members of the community in a consensus discussion, generally an RfC. This talk page is the appropriate place for Genericusername57 to start an RfC and get the needed consensus. Individual RfCs held on individual article talk pages are not sufficient, such a discussion needs to be held in a centralized place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

BLPCAT is a policy that reflects consensus of the community. You mass reinstated without addressing this or obtaining consensus per WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The policy represents community consensus, but questions about how it is to be interpreted also need consensus as well. That is why there are judges in the real world, to interpret laws, no matter how straight-forward they may appear to be. That's the role that the Wikipedia community serves here in regard to our policies.

I suggest that it might be helpful for you to take a refresher course in how to AGF. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you take the course in reviewing GNU's edits? Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging the other participants of the 3 RfCs about this discussion (Mgp28—StAnselm—Mathglot—GnocchiFan—Regulov) about the 30+ BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think anyone has disagreed that WP:BLPRACIST represents a community consensus that BLP articles should not be in these contentious categories. The disagreement that started this discussion seems to be about procedure followed in removing articles from the categories.

So is the question now whether BLP articles in these categories should be removed from them? That seems to be an inevitable consequence of BLPCAT so my !vote is to remove them. Mgp28 (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I have closed the three RfC discussions as it didn't seem to be helping the discussion to have it fragmented across four separate places. Almost all comments in those three discussions are already reflected here.

A comment in Talk:Louis Farrakhan#RfC: Bias categories mentioned something not currently here so I am copying it to allow any further discussion. Comment by User:Rhododendrites 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC):

No per CATBLP, but also he's already in most of these categories [a couple steps removed] by virtue of being in Category:Nation of Islam.

Mgp28 (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this. People shouldn't be in racism, etc. policies, but they can be in organizations that are. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't see a problem either. I just didn't want to close the conversation on your comment before people had a chance to read it. Mgp28 (talk) 19:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

There are some tricky areas with BLPCAT. Like should Richard B. Spencer be in Category:American neo-Nazis? That seems like a BLPCAT violation, right? But it's also a defining characteristic of the subject. However, some of these were not tricky areas and very straightforward applications of BLPCAT. Undoing them en masse just because "get consensus", and therefore committing mass BLP violations (edit warring as a default mode of user interaction instead of, you know, actually making specific objections) is disruptive. Following the wording of BLPCAT should be the default, not something you need to find consensus for -- it's a policy; there's already consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

While I haven't time to look into the specifics of these articles/categories, in general I would say that we need to be extremely careful about our use of categorization. It's a very powerful tool, because it dehumanizes and reduces people down to nothing more than the title of that category. Now, I'm not saying that we should eliminate it altogether, because categorization is a very fundamental part of how our minds work, and probably the minds of any animal with an amygdala (the emotional center of the brain). We cannot help but draw these rather arbitrary distinctions between things, simply because it's a much easier way to store and sort information in our own minds. (For more, see User:Zaereth#Little boxes). But, because it is so linked to our emotions and because it does dehumanize people, it is an extremely powerful propaganda tool as well. Categorization is the root of all stereotyping, which in turn is the root of all prejudice. When labeling someone a neo-Nazi, just keep in mind that the Nazis themselves used categorization to extremely devastating effect. My advice to everyone is to use extreme caution or risk becoming the very thing you fight against. Zaereth (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States

I'm starting to review and remove the disputed categories, one-by-one rather than in mass. There are a couple of dead people that I left the category untouched. I reverted myself on one BLP, Roy Moore, against removing "Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States" because the article text made it clear that he made rulings against people on the basis of their homosexuality rather than harbor bigoted views. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Along the same lines, Schenkstroop reinstated the category Discrimination against LGBT people in the United States to Nick Fuentes arguing that homophobia is discrimination.[7] The fundamental question is should this category be applied to people who hold and express bigoted opinions against LGBT or require a discriminatory act like what Roy Moore did? I believe the latter if the category should exist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Anglin

I need feedback on Andrew Anglin. I originally removed the category Misogyny because of WP:BLPRACIST since misogyny is a more severe charge of sexism. BMK disputed this, and I ultimately self-reverted because Anglin literally says, "I hate women" in the article text so I doubt he would dispute being called a misogynist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BLPCAT and this discussion from 2011 don't say that no one holds or expresses views that are sexist, racist and so on. They say that there is a consensus not to include anyone in these categories. Although the discussion I linked to is now 12 years old, I don't think anyone here has shared anything suggesting it no longer reflects community consensus.

If instead we want to say that we will include people in these categories who are definitely misogynist etc. then:

1. We will need a new consensus to do that, and

2. Someone will come along and mass add BLP articles to these categories. No one will be able to mass revert them because they will argue that the person definitely belongs in that category. So instead we will have RfC all over the place on "does this expression of racism or that expression of sexism belong in this or that category?"

Nuanced discussions about a person's beliefs can, and should, still take place in the article, with links to the reliable sources that support each statement. But I think it's safer (and reflective of continuing consensus) to adopt a unified approach for contentious categories that no BLP are added to them. Mgp28 (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

PS -- I'm new to this noticeboard. Will this discussion eventually get closed? I would remove Andrew Anglin from Category:Misogyny but I don't want to jump the gun on an ongoing discussion. Mgp28 (talk) 07:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

BLP vs. ignore all rules

I don't know whether this noticeboard is the place for this question, but it's important that I ask. I've always tried to remove unsourced material from BLPs when I find it to adhere to the BLP policy, but I just engaged in a dispute where it was argued that use common sense overrides sourcing requirement. Is this ever true? KyleJoan^talk 02:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Rather than going into a long spiel, I'm just going to leave this link, since my thoughts on this have already been written down. User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer#Editorial judgment: consciousness and conscience. In general, I think that "ignore all rules" is bad advice. Instead, rules need to be flexible to be able to encompass the infinite number of variables possible in different cases. This is where I think wikipolicy in some ways far exceeds the usefulness of laws as they are used in the legal system, that is, rigid and inflexible. Wikipolicy should really be looked at as a whole, and not simply individual policies that are potential loopholes to the others. I like to think of it as one giant equation, like you'd see on some Einstein's chalkboard, where any change in one factor affects the results of the entire equation and how all the other factors are used. When the policies no longer stand alone, but are all integrated into one, then they all work together, augmenting each other and gives it the flexibility needed to account for different situations that arise.

That said, I think policy is probably (if not already) becoming far too bloated. I think it's a grave mistake to try to make a separate policy (or part of policy) for every possibility. It's a Sisyphean task, for one thing. For another, it creates more complications than it solves and increases the rigidity. But moreover, rules should be more about the bigger picture, in terms of what is considered acceptable or not acceptable, as a guide to use our judgment wisely. Zaereth (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• If unsourced material is challenged, then the onus is on whoever wants to restore it to find a source and to convince other editors that the info is worth including. This applies to all articles, but especially to BLPs. If they repeatedly restore it without discussing, then they'll probably end up getting page blocked. It's not just a rule that the restorer is responsible... it's common sense. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• It is sometimes true that common sense overrides the BLP sourcing requirement. It's unlikely that firm rules designed by committee will be phrased carefully enough that exceptions won't be needed. Exceptions should be exceptional, explicit, rare, and called for in a way that makes it clear the editor doesn't just disagree with the rule. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Every time that IAR is invoked it needs a solid argument for it's usage. Editors are expected to use their own judgement, but that doesn't extend to "I don't like that rule, so it doesn't apply to me". -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• I'm a salty old editor and BLPN ogre. I'm a longtime deletionist, content and space wise. I just asked a COI editor to provide basic, utile, and innocuous content by directly editing the article for a singular purpose: a date or year of birth. IAR is more useful with experience. Funny, you don't need to shout IAR to get things done if you spend enough time with the concepts people like to call rules. They're complicated, they change, and that's why we have a consensus model. The dichotomy that your heading posits is false. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Michael Oher, Leigh Anne Tuohy, Sean Tuohy, and The Blind Side (film)

I'm not familiar with the process, but it seems like an edit war is going to need to be addressed on the pages for Michael Oher, Leigh Anne Tuohy, Sean Tuohy, and The Blind Side (film). Due to the prominence of the movie and the statements made by both sides, the lawsuit is drawing a lot people to the pages who seem unfamiliar with BLP, NPOV, or what can be said in ongoing legal situations (I'm not overly familiar with the Wikipedia policies, specifically, but I attempted an edit on the Leigh Anne Tuoh page and added an explanation on the Talk page--it has already been changed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggeritian (talk • contribs) 23:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As directed above, I added the BLP noticeboard template to the Talk page for each of the pages I mentioned. It would be good for someone to check I placed it correctly. I also didn’t know if there was something to do with the multiple separate items made on most of the Talk pages related to this issue. Tiggeritian (talk) 23:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like experienced editors are watching those pages and some have now been at least semi-protected. I'm not seeing a need for further admin action here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

David E. Canter

David E. Canter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I represent David E Canter.

Someone is continuously changing his wikipedia page with .com/non scholarly references that defame the character of David in his Bio. I have edited/undid the changes several times, but the person/people attacking David continue to edit his page through BOTS.

At the request of David Canter, we would like the entire page taken down.

Thank you, Alan Cameron GSE Worldwide — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acameron23 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Acameron23 There are no "bots" involved only other editors, you have a conflict of interest you can request edits with the template {{edit request}}, see WP:Edit request for more details. Theroadislong (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

While it doesn't inherently matter than the sources are non-scholarly (most of our references are not), it does matter that key attack material was source to the New York Post, which has been deemed generally unreliable. I have removed the offending material. This is not a stance on whether the page should be kept or deleted; it currently has a notability tag, and at least given the surviving references, a reasonable challenge could be made. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This doesn't require administrative intervention, except possibly a block of the OP if the resume their disruption.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah yes, what's the the rule? Bite the newcomers, right? We hate real people who point out problems on Wikipedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Come to the right place and be threatened with a block. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

In its present form the article does appear to be WP:BLP1E. My quick search does not show WP:SIGCOV of any other notability. May not be WP:N. Invasive Spices (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

The article was tagged for Proposed deletion which was endorsed by another editor and the article was deleted today. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Joanne Peters

Please refer to what I posted on her talk page. She refers to herself as Joey but Joanne is obviously her name. I think the page should stay as Joanne but Joey should be referenced at the top and additionally Joey Peters should redirect to it. What do other people think? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

IShowSpeed

Internet personality IShowSpeed is embroiled in a nudity-related controversy. There's an ongoing discussion about whether a mention of this controversy is warranted. Proponents of inclusion have brought some sources, including Complex and Dot Esports. Opponents are questioning whether the sources are reliable for sensitive BLP claims. Opponents have also cited BLP, NOTNEWS, DUE, and recentism concerns. More input would be appreciated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think taking the sources to RSN would be good idea. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Complex and Dot Esports are already considered reliable per WP:VG/RS and WP:A/S. I personally believe both sources' journalism on BLPs are decent, but the question is even if they're fully reliable for BLPs, would the controversy even be worth including in his article? PantheonRadiance (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RSN is good for discussions regarding whether specific sources are usable for specific cases. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that could be helpful too. Since there's more than just RS concerns here, I'd prefer to leave this up here for a while before taking it another noticeboard. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The reliability of sources is never black and white. It often depends a great deal on the particular information it is giving. I'd be happy to look at the specific sources in question and give my assessment of them, but I don't see them posted here or at the talk page, and it looks like digging through the history to find them is going to be a lot of work. But if someone wants to post them here I'll gladly take a look when time permits. Zaereth (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Complex: 1, 2

Dot Esports: 1 PantheonRadiance (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. All sources seem well written, keep a neutral point of view, don't try to sensationalize it, and remain rather objective. That said, all these amount to about a paragraph of the same information, which can basically be summed up as, "He had a Janet Jackson-type wardrobe-malfunction (to use a euphemism), which caused some stir on social media, and no consequences resulted", and given the size of the article and number of sources, I can't see giving it anymore weight than that, if even that much. However, weighing the sources against each other is best done by those who have read them all. Unlike Jackson, which received major, lasting news-coverage and had a rather big impact on her career, this looks a lot more like the usual celebrity gossip that will likely never have any lasting impact on his career. That's where the problems with the sources come in, because they really never did any investigation into this but are basically just regurgitating what TMZ said and what they saw on social media, and they make that pretty clear. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you make reasonable points; even though the sources seem fine, the concerns about due weight and its long-term impact still remain unclear, and there's still contention over whether it should even remain on the article. Someone else just readded the paragraph with different sources as I write this, but here's what a previous revision with the added sources looked like before we decided to remove it once more and gain consensus. PantheonRadiance (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• As a side issue: there are multiple talk page discussions about this same issue. Could an uninvolved editor review to see if it would help to hat some and direct discussion to a single section? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Lere Oyewumi

Not a complicated matter. A puff job, created years ago without references and still largely unsourced. Could be pared to a stub, but if I do so it may be misconstrued as vandalism. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I support stubbing. However, this is a public figure who may or may not pass WP:POLITICIAN. So it might actually be a complicated matter. Assuming he is someone who passes the notability criteria, any unreffed prose about notability can be tagged or removed. Five years after tagging, removal is fine. It's not vandalism unless you forget to remove the template on top. Stub status is enough. If you think this person doesn't pass GNG or POLITICIAN, try AfD? JFHJr (㊟) 05:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Don't know about notability. For the moment, I was more focused on the tendency toward aggrandizement and the mass of unsourced content in a WP:BLP. I may circle back to it later in the week. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:B58E:2993:33B8:D5A1 (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Poul Henning-Kamp

An Anti-semitism accusations section was over many years repeatedly re-added from IP addresses and also a single-edit account DemarcationZone86. The section is based entirely on self-published sources written by Henning-Kamp emself. As my knowledge of the policy goes, this should be removed per WP:BLPREMOVE point 1. But given that I'm not an experienced editor, I would like to ask for input. NicolausPrime (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A clear WP:BLP violation. There would have to be far better sourcing. I have removed the section. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Richard Ford

Efforts to include a fully-sourced (USA Today, The Guardian, etc.) discussion of Ford spitting on Colson Whitehead and the allegations that have followed were immediately deleted. Ford himself has acknowledged (in the New York Times Magazine) previously using the n-word to dismiss a critic of a friend's work. These details are a relevant part of Ford's biography, which should not be whitewashed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardfordtruther (talk • contribs) 17:46, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. It's me, the immediate deleter. I think there's some of your added content that can be worked into the body of the article, and I've been reading the sources you added to think on the best way to do so. I don't think we can add such a large amount of content to the lead, and I have not yet seen a source say that the controversy is what Ford is "best known for" apart from his writing. In general, having a username like Richardfordtruther suggests that you intend to focus solely on increasing negative coverage of Ford, and if your goal is to build an encyclopedia, I urge you to change names. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll change the name, and I'll go ahead and make the changes in the way you suggest. However, "worked into the body of the article" suggests burying these facts in the "controversies" section, and I would argue that this would do a disservice to a fair representation of the facts surrounding Ford's career. Moreover, there's already quite a bit of unsourced information in the article, including a comment at the top of the bio that Ford is "best known for..." I wonder if the same level of scrutiny will be applied to those sections or if it is only applied to sections that do not exalt the writer. Richardfordtruther (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Another example of exalting language in the introductory paragraph of this biography that is not factually provable includes "master of the short story genre." Richardfordtruther (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have put in a request for a user name change and have amended the additions in keeping with the suggestions above while also adding deeper sourcing that was missing. Richardfordtruther (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Laurence Fox image

Should File:LaurenceFox-Oxford-20060918.jpg be used at Laurence Fox#Acting career or not? Strugglehouse says yes and I say no. The image has a valid free license. It is a picture of an actor pulling "a bit of a silly face", in Strugglehouse's words, during filming in public. In my view WP:BLPIMAGE is the basis for us not including unflattering photographs from situations where the subject did not expect to be photographed (as Fox is clearly distracted by the production team). — Bilorv (talk) 00:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

If the issue is this edit, I would say that that image serves no encyclopaedic purpose. Why would we want it in the encyclopaedia? It's better suited to the tabloids. DeCausa (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

No, we have a good quality free image of him already, and that image is on the unflattering side. Unneeded. Masem (t) 01:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I think having different images of subjects across their career is good if the images are available for use. You removed the image from his article, saying that it's "Not clear what this image adds to the article.", and asking me to take it to the talk page. I think it adds value to the article as it's an additional image of Fox, showing him at a different time in his career, and shows an example of what the article is talking about within that section (his acting career). You also removed it from Lewis (TV series), citing the same reason, again asking me to take it to the talk page despite this being the first time you reverted it on that page. I think it adds even more value to the Lewis article, as it shows production of the show, something that is likely to interest a good selection of readers. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What does it add to have a picture of a subject gurning? It's a puerile choice that undermines the encyclopedic credibility of the page. DeCausa (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Setting aside my personal feelings on the article subject, the picture adds no value to the article. I'm sure we could all find unflattering pictures of most BLP subjects in Wikipedia, non of them would be acceptable or enhance the credibility of the encyclopedia. Knitsey (talk) 10:02, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't even think that that the problem is that it's unflattering. It's that it would look like it's been put in the article to amuse a 12 year old. (That may be a disservice to 12 year olds.) DeCausa (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

You're probably right. Knitsey (talk) 10:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why you're accusing me of being a child just because I wanted to add an image to an article. I just don't think the image looks that bad, but if you really don't want to include it - fine. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Strugglehouse: I did neither of those things; rather, it was a fifth editor objecting to the image on the common sense basis that it is an unpleasant depiction of the subject. — Bilorv (talk) 10:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bilorv:, apologies, I assumed you reverted it. I didn't read it properly. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Request to remove a photo

i mistakenly added two photos of Nora Attal at Alexander McQueen Fall Winter 2018 twice, please I need few steps on how to remove one of the photos, thank you Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk) 08:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [Attal] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk • contribs) 08:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Andikan Efiok Eduok, I've fixed it now. The article isn't really long enough to need two images, so I've just left the one color image. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Premeditated_Chaos can you please give me details on how to upload a photo on the infor box Andikan Efiok Eduok (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeonmi Park

See this ANI and this post about content sourced to a tabloid; I suspect that Yeonmi Park needs a deep clean because of extensive POV editing by The History Wizard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Did all the cleanup I could (flow, reorganizing, citing, redundancy and repetive wording with some source-to-text intergrity issues, but there is more close paraphrasing than I'm prepared to deal with; it's as if the entire Sommers Washington Post and The Diplomat articles were plopped in. Over and out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Prigozhin's alleged death

A discussion about adding a blurb to the in the news section of the Main Page attracted surprisingly many supports. All versions variously state that Prigozhin is dead based on the notion that the plane he was supposed to board went through a rapid unscheduled disassembly. No reliable news outlet I am aware of confirms yet that Prigozhin indeed boarded the plane, so while it is fairly likely he died, we can't be sure. In my view, all blurbs fly in the face of the BLP principle that BLP material be written conservatively and without overstatement - this one jumps to the conclusion straight ahead.

This post is made for the attention of BLPN regulars who I hope will use the tools in their disposal should the blurb be passed despite violating policy. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The BBC reported his death about 2 hours ago, but has now seemingly changed their story. GiantSnowman 19:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If only Wikipedia could wait for reliable information. Alas, this comes with Wikipedia's status as a provider of breaking news. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Alexander Jackson Maier

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

---

Here's an article that I've moved out of main space back into draft space. The editor, User:Nyhn2023, reinstated a paragraph ("Controversy") that I had deleted before because of BLP concerns--a paragraph full of editorial commentary, which plays fast and loose with the cited sources, one of which has this headline, "Black 'Irish Lord' who backed Meghan over claims of royal racism confesses he's a FRAUD: US student, 22, who proclaimed he was '11th Marquess of Annaville' apologises after lies exposed". This "Irish Lord" is the subject of the article, and two of the three sources for that section are, ahem, from non-stellar publications. I'm wondering right now if we shouldn't just squash the entire article for being a mostly unverified puff piece with BLP problems. Those with admin glasses will see that there's 118 deleted edits and the draft/article has been deleted twice, once for advertising. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Why did you move protect the page after re-draftifying in violation of WP:DRAFTOBJECT? If you think the page should not be in mainspace, revert and open an AFD. Iffy★Chat -- 22:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Yumna Zaidi

Yumna Zaidi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The subject of this article recently appeared in an interview on Elon Musk's microblog website, supposedly claiming that some of the info in her Wikipedia bio is incorrect, including her date of birth (I say supposedly because the video is not in English so I'm relying on what is being said in edit requests on the talk page). I see requests to change this info as far back as 2018, none ever accepted because none ever provided a reliable source conflicting with the date we have, and many sources corroborate it. However, I see a problem with the origin of these sources:

• Our article first added a DOB, July 30 (no year), on 2 July 2013. No source was provided.
• A year was added, 1993, on 8 Sep 2013. Still unsourced.
• The same month that was changed to 1990, reverted, and then changed to 3 July 1989. No sources for any of these dates.
• At one point it was changed to 2000, but that was clearly vandalism.
• The date was changed to 30 July 1989 on 30 March 2015, again with no source.
• All of those edits were IPs. On 31 August 2015 Ponyo pared the date down to 1989 and removed some other unsourced info, but as far as I know there was still no source for the DOB. The only source in that revision was this (archive link), which gives "Birthday: N/A".
• Ponyo then spent the next several months defending the article from a brigade of sockpuppets, all trying to restore a version of the article with the unsourced 30 July 1989 date. It was reverted each time, and through several rounds of protection the article ended up indefinitely EC-protected as of 3 Apr 2018. One of the vandals was Pakistanpedia, an editor well-known for poor quality paid promotional editing.
• On 1 May 2016, a new editor restored the 3 July 1989 date with no source, then on the same day corrected it to 30 July 1989 and added this source. According to archive.org, in December 2015 that site gave a DOB of 30 July 1989, and the page had a revision date of 29 August 2015 - 2 days before Ponyo removed that date from our article. Some time between 9 Dec 2016 and 19 May 2017 that source changed its DOB to 3 July 1989. As of today that site still gives 3 July 1989 and a current age of 29, which is not how math works. The site appears to accept user contributions; not reliable. Ponyo removed the source on 5 Aug 2016 along with several other unsuitable sources, but left the DOB in the article.
• On 31 December 2021 an IP asked about the age in the article, saying they watched an interview 3 years prior in which she said she was 24. That would give a range of 1991-92, which corresponds to a number of edit requests around the same time. None provided a source, though, and no source was provided for the interview.
• The DOB of 30 July 1989 stayed in the article, unchanged but without a source, until two new sources were added on 2 Jan 2022. Those sources are the same ones that are in the article now: Bol News and Daily Pakistan. These two articles are a year apart, posting about her age as of her birthday those years. Oddly, both of these sources confused the date as 30 June, although it's clearly an error based on the publication date (the Bol News error is in an article linked from the one used as the source). Both sources link to a birthday post on her official Instagram posted on 30 July in the respective year, so that seems to confirm 30 July, just not a year.
• Zaidi seems to closely guard her true age. The video of Zaidi stating our DOB is wrong was posted on 11 Aug 2023. I don't think she stated what the correct date is, just that ours is wrong, but the video is in a language I don't understand. Jéské Couriano has said, I think correctly, that celebrities are not reliable sources for their own ages since they have incentive to mislead, and that owing to the controversy about it we have an obligation to rely on high-quality reliable sources.

I think it's evident that the sources which have published a DOB of 30 July 1989 have taken the date from Wikipedia, since all the sources I've found are celebrity "news" sites which don't exactly have the best reputation for fact-checking, and all were published during the long period that Wikipedia presented that date without a source. I think the sources we have support 30 July, but not the year. I'm posting here for outside opinions but I will leave a link on the talk page; I think the responsible thing to do is remove her DOB at this time, unless and until a more reliable source publishes it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If this is indeed a citogenesis situation, I agree. (The subject is a television star, hence the incentive to mislead on age.) —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 14:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for doing such a deep dive on this Ivanvector. I agree that the most BLP-compliant solution is to remove the birthdate altogether unless and until there is rock-solid sourcing to support its inclusion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

In this case, I agree with removal of the DOB altogether without a good source because the topic has become contested and contentious. JFHJr (㊟) 05:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Liekens 2

User Russ_Woodroofe claims the references do not name the defendant directly, although the first article names the defendant and their public persona directly and references his involvement in a television show Team Schreire on Canvas (Belgian television). The image is of Anthony Liekens in his Open Garage. Het Laatste Nieuws published an article about Liekens in 2020 which provides additional confirmation as both photos are of the same session. Since the assault charges have been made public, there have been several attempts to remove this information from Liekens’ Wikipedia page. We need to objectively consider if omitting this information is in the public interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellingthetruthforher (talk • contribs)

Tellingthetruthforher, please see the discussion of the same article further up on this page. I read consensus there as being that, with the current sources, we can't include this. (I _certainly_ agree that it would be worthwhile to put in, if sourcing can be found. I spent some time looking, without much success.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Russ Woodroofe, the discussion was based on two citations that have been retracted. None of the currently provided references have been retracted, so referring to the discussion as a proof of consensus is irrelevant. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Tellingthetruthforher, while possible retraction of original sources was discussed, the main complaint was that none of the articles actually mention the subject. (At least, that is the reason I did not reinsert the material myself; I do not and did not believe that the articles were retracted, which usually comes with a message of retraction from the newspaper.) The layer of anonymity is indeed very thin, but per WP:SYNTH, I am doubtful that we are permitted to pierce it. All that said, I am going to stand back and let other editors weigh in here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The articles were not retracted in the sense that they were considered factually wrong. They were removed based on Belgian privacy laws. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The currently referenced articles are still available online. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes. My point and that of Russ Woodroofe is that the issue with the original citations was not that the articles were "retracted" since that was for privacy right reasons and not for reliability reasons. The issue was that they did not fully name the subject. In my opinion it is not sufficient for us to be able to make the connection based on available information, that would be WP:SYNTH. We would need a source explicitly identifying the subject. And that is something the original sources did not and as far as I can see no other sources do either. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:SYNTH does not apply. There’s only one Anthony L. in Team Scheire, there is only one Anthony L. in Schilde with an Open Garage, depicted the articles. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.
— WP:SYNTH

The fact that it is easy to connect the information to arrive at the conclusion that the subject of the articles is indeed AL does not change the fact that WP:SYNTH applies. Inclusion would be a WP:BLP violation. Feel free to start an WP:RfC. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The conclusion was made by the subject, when they reported themselves to the police. There is nothing potentially defamatory if it is public knowledge. Quoting Wikipedia:SYNTH in full does not provide more substance to an incorrect argument. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is very explicit about the fact that the content you want to add cannot be added without sources that explicitly and fully identify AL as the subject. The fact that you, or even everyone knows that he is the subject does not change that. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

They do fully identify AL as the subject, you simply refuse to accept it. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The fact that the information that is given is sufficient to conclude that AL is the subject is not sufficient for Wikipedia. Unless he is explicitly named WP:SYNTH applies. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t apply. No synthesis is made. Clearly demonstrate, without the insistence to name AL in full, how the information within the individual articles does not refer to the subject. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tellingthetruthforher: there's a clear contradiction between what you are saying. On the one hand you are saying it is not synthesis. On the other hand you are saying that the only way you know that these are the same people is because you've looked at the list of all participants in the programme and whatever Open Garage is and found that only one of them is named Anthony L. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I have physically been to the Open Garage, met AL, and have spoken to some of the people involved with the 'children friendly' hacker camp Fri3d Camp after the incident. I know this is the truth and if there are events he is involved in that might invite children, the public should be informed. To clarify, I have no personal relationship with the subject or any personal vendetta against the subject. I simply know this to be factually true. I am aware that there is a steep threshold to be met to include this information on his page and that I have been somewhat argumentative, but there is an urgency to including it and I would like to find a means of doing so that is acceptable to WP without ignoring the obvious sources that are publicly available. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It really does seem that you're here for morally good reasons, Tellingthetruthforher. But that's actually not enough to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia. Please consider what other ways you can protect your community besides insisting on including this content on Wikipedia, which clearly violates our policy against original synthesis. The explanatory essay on tendentious editing has a section about this that you should probably read before proceeding further with this line of argument. It's called "Righting Great Wrongs", and even explicitly mentions exposing child molesters as an example. Feel free to reach out to me on my talk page or by email if you'd like to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm reminded of the case of Tom Willett which has some vague similarities to here. That case involved historic offences but we had loosely similar issues in that while there were RS which named the person, it was impossible to be sure without OR it referred to the same subject as our article as none of the more recent sources which we used for our article mentioned these offences. There was a lot of editors from Reddit and elsewhere Talk:Tom Willett/Archive 1#Legal Issues trying to convince us we needed to document these offences in our article despite a lack of sources but we rightfully held fast. Eventually an RS was updated to include mention of these offences and we could include the information Talk:Tom Willett/Archive 1#Reliable source updates a 2020 profile to include criminal history. (These may not have been unconnected events but that's sort of moot.) That's really the only way that will work here too. Some RS needs to emerge, whether an older RS being updated, a new RS being published or even an existing RS which we've somehow missed being revealed which clearly links the subject of our article to the crime. Until that happens, our article will rightfully stay as it is. If it never happens perhaps because only Belgium sources are interested in the subject and editors are correct that Belgium law doesn't allow it to be published, so be it. I'm fairly sure there are people with worse crimes who we've not documented because of a lack of RS. In fact, I'm aware of one similar case in NZ, where the offender's identity has never been publicised to protect their child who was the victim of their crime, and it seems there's a fair chance we have an article on them. (Although I also suspect the offender is no longer active in NZ.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Do we actually know that they were removed due to the privacy laws, or is that an assumption we're making? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think it is just an assumption at this point. But even if we discard those sources there are still multiple sources available. They just don't name the subject (but that is also the case with the removed sources as far as I know). -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I cannot access the full article that you say "names the defendant and their public persona directly". But the part I can see refers to the subject as "Anthony L.". Piecing together information like his involvement in a TV show, comparing photos, etc. falls in my opinion under WP:SYNTH. And given that the WP:V hurdle for WP:BLP articles is pretty high, and even higher for allegations of (criminal) misconduct, I see no way of including this in his article unless we find a WP:RS that uses his full name. Whether or not it is "in the public interest" to include the information has to take a back seat to WP:PAG. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Your best chance of finding a source that does name him is probably to look for non-Belgian sources that are not subject to Belgium's privacy laws. But I am afraid that media outside of Belgium may not have taken notice. At least I wasn't able to find anything so far. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, Wikipedia:SYNTH does not apply here. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If all supporting information apart from the full spelling of the last name applies to the subject, you can’t exclude the information based on an internal technicality that doesn’t apply to the referenced articles. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." WP:SYNTH -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The information regarding Team Scheire is presented within a single reference and is sufficient. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not sufficient. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

It is if the subject is a known public figure and no other person in the Team Scheire TV show is named Anthony L. There is no way around it. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That chain of inference, right there - the If <X> then <Y> reasoning, that is original research. We can't do that. MrOllie (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If we have a reliable secondary source (and not just a primary source) that mentions his involvement in Team Scheire, we can mention his involvement in that programme. Likewise for whatever Open Garage is. We cannot however mention the criminal conviction of someone called Anthony L from Team Scheire or Open Garage since doing so is a clear violation of WP:Synth. Note that this was already discussed last time, despite what Tellingthetruthforher said above, I did infact mention last time that making any connection between an Anthony L om Team Scheire would clearly be synth. (Not Open Garage since I didn't see it last time, but it makes no difference. Nil Einne (talk) 06:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Good news: I found a source. Bad news: I don't think it is an WP:RS. But I would like to hear other people's opinion before dismissing it. The source is here (en via google translate). The source names AL, describes his offense and his conviction. But it is an opinion article on a site that otherwise publishes satirical content: ‘tScheldt Vlaamse Satire. @Russ Woodroofe, @Nil Einne, @MrOllie, @NatGertler, @Generalrelative, @Tellingthetruthforher. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 19:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for finding this, and for the ping. I'd suggest that this doesn't clear the relatively high bar set by BLP when potentially reputation-destroying content is involved. I see no evidence of, for instance, editorial oversight. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but 't Scheldt is indeed not a WP:RS. Tellingthetruthforher (talk) 07:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Offended article subject

Please see this! Can anything be done? SergeWoodzing (talk) 15:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

A note for archive search purposes that this is about Alexandre_Grimaldi-Coste and which name to use. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I can understand mentioning him at Albert II, Prince of Monaco, but does this individual really warrant a separate article? His sole claim to notability is being the illegitimate child of a monarch, which seems to be WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO to me. There's otherwise nothing interesting to say about him. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There's now a merge proposal, see Talk:Alexandre_Grimaldi-Coste#Merge_proposal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dominic Ng

I am new here, and have COI with the subject of this article, so I’m reaching out to the Wiki community for help.

Dominic Ng is a highly regarded American businessman with a notable public record. His bio has been edited to present a skewed and unfounded version of him associating him with the Chinese Community Party. Over the past couple years, the bio has shifted from resume-like to replete with controversies stacked into this bio. Aside from my ask that editors take a look into bias in the article as a whole, as well as the talk page, here are some specifics that come to mind:

• The section on APEC is so packed with controversies that there's no discussion of Mr. Ng’s actual role with APEC. And why is APEC a subsection of “China-US Relations” when APEC encompasses 21 economies bordering the Pacific Ocean?

• The sentence on the CCP front organizations links to a Chinese source, and the Google translation is so problematic, according to my colleagues, that it’s tantamount to a lie. If anyone with Chinese language proficiency can take a look, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance for your input! INFjorder (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@INFjorder, I have reviewed the article. I had done some edits, detailing my rationale for the edits in the edit summaries. Do note that Wikipedia is not a place to post one's resume, and one should not expect a biography here to be as such. It is unfortunate that his work as an US rep for APEC is shadowed by geo-politics, however I see no reason to remove them (see WP:CENSORSHIP, WP:WHITEWASH). Given that the APEC summit is coming up, there may be more sources about his work rather than this issue when or after it is held. – robertsky (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Tyson Fury/endorsements

(I will emphasise that good faith is assumed by all contributors.) Query regarding the Other ventures section of this professional boxer, specifically paragraphs 6–8 about his new product endorsements. Isn't all that detail about flavours, sugar-free versions and retailers (not the sources used, but using WP's voice to say "These multitude of products can be bought from here, here, and here") verging on falling foul of WP:CRUFT and WP:PROMO? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think all those "Furocity" products can be handled together in one or two sentences. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that whole Other Ventures section is a proseliney mess; I've tried to add some coherent structure and trimmed some of the excessive detail about the energy drink stuff. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Immediately looking more encyclopaedic. Input appreciated. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Vesna Goldsworthy

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

---

• A photograph of Mrs. Goldsworthy has been added to her page. The request for one may be deleted.
• I am working on her bio. It will be posted in my sandbox. Will someone be able to review it before it is posted? There is a bio on Swedish Wikipedia that must be rewritten for multiple reasons [url https://sr.wikipedia.org/sr-el/%D0%92%D0%B5%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%B4%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%82%D0%B8 ]
• Another editor is also modifying her page. I think that the lead section is getting a bit long. I would not change anything until after the bio is posted. Oldsilenus (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for bringing this here. Unfortunately, this page is not really for reviewing prospective articles but for reporting violations of WP:BLP policy, or discussing the use of that policy and how it applies to specific articles. Although I sometimes do review drafts that are brought here, that's just a courtesy really, and they have to be on Wikipedia so I can actually see them. But again, not really what this noticeboard is for. I would instead suggest taking your proposal to WP:Articles for creation, follow the process, and people there will be happy to review your draft. Thanks, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I was returning here to say that my comment on the leading section is incorrect. I will ask elsewhere where the leading section ends and bio begins! Oldsilenus (talk) 21:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome. Think of the lede as being a short summary of the entire article. It's mainly just a quick synopsis for children, newcomers, people with short attention spans, or otherwise those who don't want to get all bogged down in details but just want the gist of it. The shorter and more concise you can make it; the better. In general, I would say to shoot for no more than three paragraphs to be most effective. Maybe as many as five for really complex subject, but if you find it approaching seven it's time to think about how to condense the information better. The lede is nothing more than a short summary of the body, and nothing should be there that isn't already covered in greater detail in the body. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I feel the need to point out that that is Serbian Wikipedia. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You are, I am sure, correct. I was told mistakenly that it was Swedish and Serbs were asked to update her bio. I might as well ask here, since this is tea house, if in the age of computerized translations, i.e., Google translate, Edge (right click on a Serbian page and one has the option of an automatic translation to English) the Serbian sources may be used with care. Actually, the sources do not always seem to say what is claimed on the Wikipedia page.Oldsilenus (talk) 20:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Richard Wexler - potential delete?

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Wexler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not sure about this one. This page appears to lack secondary source notability, mostly the sources are primary source e.g. Wexlers own website, or his submission to congress, and then the ones in media are his own op-eds and articles he wrote. There are no secondary sources actually covering him that would establish notability to warrant an article.

There is a large paragraph claiming he has been interviewed and featured in a total of 15 media outlets, but there are only a handful of citations, most of them do not even mention his name, one is a fake citation, and the few that do are just op-eds he wrote! The one major secondary source literally get's one sentence from him, which seems like a low bar for notability. Can editors please advise on deletion and what to do? Zenomonoz (talk) 12:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

A quick web search suggests that what you see in the article -- i.e., that he shows up as an author or for brief quotes as an expert on child protection -- is what is out there, rather than third-party material talking about him in depth. So yes, a good candidate for deletion. The article was created over a decade ago by Valwex (talk · contribs) (if that name suggests COI, at least the editor did do it through Articles For Creation, so properly.) The article did survive one attempt to speedy-delete it in 2016. It is not heavily edited -- zero edits in 2023 to date -- so odds are good that if you use the simple WP:PROD deletion process, no one will show up to object to the deletion. If you do take it through the full Articles For Deletion process, be sure you follow the guidelines at WP:BEFORE first, doing more than just a basic web search (i.e., what I did) to make sure that there aren't sources giving notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion. I hope you'll repeat your concerns at the deletion discussion page (linked at top). Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 16:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Nat. Your comments would be good on the AfD. Zenomonoz (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Philippe Servaty

I've notice new user, Vesterf has made a lot of changes to the article with claims of a twitter spat (summaries now removed so I won't repeat them). Would someone be able to take a look at [8]. I'm not familiar with the subject or their history and I'm unsure which, if any of the sources are, are reliable. This involves the reversal of edits by Qualcommm250 who they state is impersonating another editor Qualcomm250 see edit summary [9]. I don't feel I have the experience to untangle this. Many thanks, Knitsey (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This is my first time adding a report. I've tagged the talk page. Should I ping any of the users involves. I'm particularly concerned about the possible imitation of another editor. Knitsey (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've already blocked Qualcommm250 for impersonation. Some pings or talk page notifications wouldn't go amiss. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've left a message for Qualcomm250 about this discussion. Thank you so much (to both of you) for sorting it out. Knitsey (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

This does appear to have been a major news story in Morocco, so I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the main facts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Javier Milei

This article is experiencing edit wars with disputed and unsourced content being readded without discussion. There is an NPOV discussion in the talk page. See this revert.

As the subject has seen a large amount of news articles in the last few weeks, careful review of these sources is being argued, however some editors are using nearly any newspaper article as a reliable source for factual statements. Pedantic Aristotle (talk) 22:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)