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.

Simon Sisters' Resolvable Discrepancies Still Unresolved

With a subscription to Ancestry.com, anybody can find out when they were really born. Joanna was born on October 20, 1936,[1] Lucy on May 5, 1940,[2] and Carly on June 25, 1943.[3] Those are the facts. Check the 1950 census and the facts line up.[4]

Two prior discussions (one at this noticeboard) proved fruitless, with hardly any users engaging. I ask that more users provide input. Lots of secondary sources report Carly's birth year truthfully. Fewer for Joanna and Lucy cause they're not as famous.

It's been said that birth and census records are not allowed in a BLP. But the article for Lee Grant includes an Ancestry link to the same publicly accessible birth index the Simons are listed in. And the Barbara Walters article cites a book which names the U.S. Census Bureau as its source for the claim that Walters was born in the 1920s.

If the birthdate is ascertainible then why do we have to also list the debunked birthdates that have previously been published? Some of you may remember that Madonna used to claim 1960, early in her career, and several almanacs and articles from the eighties shaved two years off her birthdate. But only 1958 is listed on Wikipedia....because there can only be one accurate year regardless of how many have been published in the past. Ysovain (talk) 01:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Ysovain: I did not respond to your earlier question because I felt it had already been answered. You do not need 10 people to tell you that policy does not allow Ancestry to be used in that way per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIVACY, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. indeedIndeed, your editing career here is likely to be short if you keep demanding 10 people tell you the same thing per WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. You need to accept our policies and guidelines especially BLP or stop editing here. From you description of the sourcing, from Wikipedia's POV, this discrepancy is not resolvable despite what you keep saying. If other sources did not care to resolve it, we don't either.

As for the other stuff, well, about Lee GrantBarbara Walters, it's perfectly fine for reliable secondary sources to use primary sources to ascertain the date. That's the whole point of reliable secondary sources, we trust them to adequately assess primary and other sources for accuracy, as well as decide if the information is important enough to publish. About Barbara WaltersLee Grant, there seem to be a lot of sources including some secondary and tertiary ones for the year. I'm not sure how the specific year was decided, but I'm not convinced it was from deciding Ancestry or the other primary sources are is the be all sources. If it was, then this was a mistake put per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it does not mean we should repeat that mistake elsewhere. Edit: Personally I would much rather we didn't include most of those primary sources in Grant at all but with so many other sources it's a fairly minor thing IMO.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC) 04:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

I came across the edit Ysovain made immediately before starting this discussion [5] while looking for uses of the horribly unreliable thefamouspeople.com. I'm afraid whatever biases this editor has are incompatible with editing these articles. --Hipal (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The Associated Press states that Carly Simon turned 79 on June 25th.[6] This was repeated by outlets such as ABC News[7] plus many other sources that back it up:

• https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800089/
• https://www2.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/4ce2ba312883c
• https://www.almanac.com/fact/carly-simon-musician-born
• https://teachrock.org/people/simon-carly/
• https://www.prestomusic.com/jazz/composers/11083--simon-c
• https://www.songfacts.com/facts/carly-simon
• https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/173740.Carly_Simon
• https://www.onthisday.com/music/birthdays/date/1943/june
• https://www.wilde-life.com/encyclopedia/s/simon-carly

So why is "or 1945" necessary when the Madonna article doesn't say "or 1960" ??

There are TEN citations next to that. The appropriate action would've been to remove the one, not all of them. Ysovain (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

This analysis of the birth records and 1950 census record is a good sanity check on the conflicting dates. I added another citation to the Carly Simon article that supports the 1943 birthdate. It is a quote from James Taylor (born March 1948), who spoke about seeing Carly Simon on stage when he was 14 and recounted, "I thought she was quite attractive, but she was, and still is, four years older than I was, so back then when she was 18 and I was 14 she was a bit less approachable than she was when I was 24." Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think a block or ban is necessary at this point. [8] Ysovain appears unable to differentiate reliable from unreliable sources or work with other editors following policy.

• Ysovain (talk · contribs)
• Carly Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lucy Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Simon Sisters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• June 25 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 1943 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm unclear why the ref (Jack Harkrider (April 27, 1963). "Smothers Brothers Visit 'Hootenanny'". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The Simon Sisters, Lucy and Carly, making their television debut, will sing "Winken, Blinken, and Nod.") has been removed. I've gone ahead and removed it further [9][10], until we can sort out the content policy issues around it.

I'm not seeing any article talk page discussions at all. @4meter4: could you explain the problems with using the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reference above? --Hipal (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@ Hipal I need some better context to understand why I am being pinged about this particular source; for one I can't see it's content (pay wall) and the quoted text doesn't seem pertinent to the topic. As far as I can remember I added back all of the verifiable age related sources added by Ysovain in the explanatory note at Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano). The issue was the Ysovain wanted to use sources that gave an age (but not an actual day, month, or year of birth); to verify a specific date of birth as October 20, 1936. That can't be done because the sources in question don't actually say anywhere that she was born on October 20, 1936; that's original guesswork/research (and if she lied about the year she was born she could easily lie about the day too). We can really only report what the sources actually say per WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:SYNTH. See the explanatory note as to how I addressed the issue as neutrally as possible.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've restored it to The Simon Sisters, where it was used to verify their tv debut in '63. The quote suggests the reference is an announcement, rather than after-the-fact reporting. A better reference would help: https://www.worldcat.org/title/80547877 , or maybe More Room in a Broken Heart: The True Adventures of Carly Simon By Stephen Davis. --Hipal (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I was confusing two similar refs, and the one I identified above hadn't been removed, only the usage had been changed as 4meter4 explains. The second is ("Rutgers Plays Host to TV's 'Hootenanny' Show Tonight". The News & Observer. May 4, 1963. p. 15.), which I don't have access to, and partially restored to Lucy Simon. --Hipal (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive333#Carly_Simon_was_born_in_1943_..._NOT_1945 --Hipal (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

• WP:SOCK?4meter4 (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Carly Simon's date of birth is 1945, according to Massachusetts voter records. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that Carly was 17 when she first heard the Beatles, so her date of birth has to be 1945 as The Beatles did not put out their first record until 1962. (2601:C6:8480:1F10:B8FA:5E82:ECBB:C731 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC))

Carly Simon's wedding announcements to James Taylor in 1972 listed her age as 27, although prior records (her birth record and 1950 census record) reflect a birthdate of June 1943. Listing her age as 27 rather than her actual age of 29 in the wedding announcements in 1972 makes sense, because her husband, James Taylor, was only 24 years old. Simple explanation. The Beatles story is, unfortunately, not a reliable source. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why we can't use ancestry as a source. There is a document published there with the birth being reported on 25 June 1943. That seems as the most reliable source to me. DrKilleMoff (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Agree, but perhaps worth saying that the Ancestry information supports other WP:RS cited in the article. Citations that cite the 1945 birthdate have relied on less-reliable, concocted information. Samp4ngeles (talk) 09:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The 1974 book entitled Carly Simon by Charles and Ann Morse noted, "Because Joanna was 6 years older than Carly, the two never had to compete. Carly enjoyed her brother Peter. But Lucy, only 3 years older, was someone Carly wanted to copy." This is congruent with births in October 1936 for Joanna, May 1940 for Lucy, and June 1943 for Carly.--Samp4ngeles (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The 2012 book Hearts of Darkness: James Taylor, Jackson Browne, Cat Stevens, and the Unlikely Rise of the Singer-Songwriter quotes James Taylor as saying, "I thought [Carly Simon] was quite attractive, but she was, and still is, four years older than I was, so back then when she was eighteen and I was fourteen, she was a bit less approachable than she was when I was twenty-four." This is congruent with births in June 1943 for Carly Simon and March 1948 for James Taylor.--Samp4ngeles (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Vladislav Doronin

Vladislav Doronin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'd appreciate some input from this group about recent edits to Vladislav Doronin's article. There appears to be one editor with an almost obsessive interest in the subject, and a pattern of suspicious editing, who adds inappropriate and unencyclopedic content to the article. As someone who hasn't experienced this before, any guidance and insight would be appreciated. Thank you CharlotteAman (talk) 10:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

My previous post on this noticeboard about the harmful edits made to the Vladislav Doronin article was ignored. DrDavidLivesey ignored my Talk Page discussion and continues to add (or in some cases reinsert) content that is unencyclopedic and irrelevant to a BLP, substantiated by unacceptable sources known to be tabloid in nature (like Page Six, Bustle, Evening Standard, and others). My previous post here is the only one that has gone unanswered. I am re-engaging because I understand that these kinds of edits and the behavior of this editor need to be reported and resolved. CharlotteAman (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Dear @CharlotteAman, despite your conflict of interest, your comments are helpful because they make the Doronin article better. But directly editing the article is a violation of WP:COIEDIT.

First of all I assume your good faith, but I suggest from your tone that you were expecting an immediate reaction from me when you made comments and requests. But Wikipedia has an essay on the subject No one is obligated to satisfy you. This is not to say that our community is unfriendly, we just don't have a job here, we edit Wikipedia in our personal time. Sometimes some requests wait months, or even years, to be answered.

To avoid WP:WAR, I responded to all your unreasonable deletions on Talk:Vladislav_Doronin. DrDavidLivesey (talk) 01:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hunter Fraser

Please take a look at this draft article about a professor created yesterday. The original version was mostly about his arrest. The current version has more about him professionally but still has a section devoted to details of the misdemeanor charge. Without a conviction this seems inappropriate for a professor who is not a public figure. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh, god no. That has to go. We can't have things like this in an article unless/until a conviction is secured in a court, and that conviction is reported in reliable secondary-sources. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

In fact, I went ahead and removed it, because even in draft space it is still a violation of WP:BLPCRIME. Zaereth (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if this whole thread is violation of the BLP policy, as a quick Google search based on your discussion above provided me with unseemly, unverified details about the article's subject. Ditch ∝ 19:40, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Suella Braverman

Cordyceps-Zombie has been calling editors sexist and racist on the Suella Braverman article for using the article subject's most recognisable and widely-accepted name (even by herself) (Diff, diff, diff). The user has also been unilaterally this high-profile pages without prior talk page consensus (diff, diff). Even as I write this, there are more incidents coming up.

Clearly a poor attempt at trolling by someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia on a high-profile BLP. Given the situation at the moment, there will likely be a spate of vandalism relating to British politicians BLPs. --QueenofBithynia (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I undid, as I quite agree--edits and summaries stretch AGF beyond credulity. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Could you also move the page back to its original title? Nobody calls her Sue-Ellen, but I don't want to be seen as edit warring on this article given its current prominence. QueenofBithynia (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Done, but now I am at 3RR. Other eyes/opinions welcomed. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Cordyceps-Zombie indeffed without TPA courtesy of RickinBaltimore. RAN1 (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Gregg L. Semenza

User:Arifer sock Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I revised the BLP on Gregg L. Semenza today by adding the new section "Retractions". My effort was motivated by a recent Nature article stating that Semenza's coauthored work that has attracted public scrutiny due to concerns regarding the validity of the data. The article claims that 17 papers by the subject have been retracted or corrected or elicited expressions of concern, and another 15 papers are currently under close scrutiny. It is unclear whether this may be construed as a misconduct pattern or just sloppiness in the lab. I suppose the article may be regarded as a secondary source and therefore worth incorporated in WP given the importance of the matter. Since the subject is a famous living person, abundance of caution becomes mandatory and accordingly, I would like to invite fellow editors to intervene and review or revise the material I have inserted. IneqsBell (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC) This user has been blocked as a sock of Ariel Fernandez, which is deeply ironic given Fernandez's fervent opposition to mentions of expressions of concern in his own article. Large sections of IneqsBell's additions to the article are unsourced. I wouldn't be opposed to removing their additions entirely and rewriting from scratch. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC) I reverted their additions entirely. In addition to the WP:BANREVERT justification, the content included bits of blatant copyvio and even more WP:CLOP. No objections if someone wants to add content based on the Nature source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC) Should this section be hatted, given that it was made by a sock? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 02:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC) I wouldn't push for it, but it wouldn't bother me. If someone wants to delete this section or archive it right away, they have my permission. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:29, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kiwi Farms

Talk:Kiwi Farms was set to perma semi-protection, then was changed to time-expiry extended-confirmed due to a single troll; when it expired, it reverted to no protection, but should be set back to perma semi-protection to avoid persistent vandalism. Lizthegrey (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Lizthegrey: I've reapplied the previous indef semi-proteciton. Thanks for the heads up. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Middle East Eye

I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes here. Someone has been adding information about one of the outlet's contributor, who had an award retracted after allegations were raised about anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism writings. While that part of the information seem verified, I fear the way it's being added violates our WP:BLP policies (specially as it's been written in WP:WIKIVOICE), and it might be WP:UNDUE, as it isn't directly related to the outlet itself. My attempts at explaining that to the editor didn't work. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Coverage from The Jerusalem Post and Arab News probably merits a sentence, but it seems the IP is new to BLP so I'll try to write up something more neutral. RAN1 (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Should be all set now. RAN1 (talk) 23:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Sacheen Littlefeather

Sacheen Littlefeather (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could use some assistance at this one - very recently dead person being accused by a notable activist that they are faking their ancestry:

Sources:

• An OpEd which I believe is reliable for the notable viewpoints of Jacqueline Keeler - [11]
• A questionably reliable source impugning Ms. Keeler - [12]
• Lots of NOT RELIABLE tweets impugning the methology of the article (alleging Keeler convinced her source of a thing, then used the source to state the thing as if the source came up with it) - [13] et. al.
• A person who may very well be Keeler editing the article in question in the distant past - [14] ref [15]

Problems:

• 2603:6011:4602:B4D4:11A:57C8:26AC:589 (talk · contribs) won't stop impunging the subject on the talk page ("FRAUDULENT CLAIMANT", "Pretendian fraudster")
• KMCN43 (talk · contribs) may have stopped linking not-reliable Twitter, but I'm not sure.

Help from other people wouild be appreciated. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The "questionably reliable source" is not reliable. It's an opinion piece on a networking site, powows.com and should be removed. When it first went up, it was a message board post, and several of us removed it. Then it was moved to a new url on the site to look like an article. It's the same post/opinion piece. As an active member of the Indigenous Wikiproject, we deal with issues of verifying Native American and Indigenous Canadian identity regularly. Native claims have to be confirmed by the tribe/nation the person claims. If they're not claimed back, they're not Native. It doesn't matter how many fans they have. Even the New York Times gets this wrong a lot of the time, fwiw, believing self-id and not doing due diligence. From what I've seen, the bio subject never gave any evidence. Simple phone calls to enrollment have confirmed she's not who she claimed to be. And now her family has come forward to confirm, but people are insulting her family. It's taking a while for the reliable news outlets to catch up, and, like usual, many are unclear on how to parse and write about Native identity issues. Even the more reliable ones are making mistakes. Most Native editors have been staying out of it until things calm down. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

• I am concerned by the rules promulgated by WP:NDNID, and further concerned by some of your statements. First, if "even the New York Times gets this wrong a lot of the time, fwiw, believing self-id and not doing due diligence," then your rule clearly violates WP:V. Secondly, "Simple phone calls to enrollment have confirmed she's not who she claimed to be," is a clear violation of WP:NOR. Hipocrite (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  Hipocrite... Again, these are talk pages and I'm asking you to AGF. I'm not telling Wikipedians to take it upon themselves to call enrollment then write about their OR. I'm sorry if this was unclear. I assumed people would understand this is just a discussion. I'm talking about how these things are done in our communities off-wiki. I'm talking about the issues a community of editors here on WP deal with when there is information we have that the sources "of record" like the NYT continually get wrong due to issues of inherent bias and chronic lack of fact-checking. It's a problem. Non-Native sources are often not RS on Native topics. Just like someone with a phd in Marine Biology is probably not an authoritative source on Russian History. That's why the Wikiproject has had to figure out what to do when we have had situations where, for instance, authoritative sources - the Nations themselves - have had to issue statements when sources like the NYT have issued false statements. FWIW, most Nations have so many false claimants they don't usually bother unless it's a very high profile fraud... but not so high profile that the backlash isn't worth it. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 01:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Note - This bio subject is no longer living; why is at BLP? - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 00:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Recently deceased are also covered.Slywriter (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I saw this story come up in the news and knew BLP was coming. As Slywriter says, someone dead only a month is still likely covered by BLP, and this is a strong case of why. We have an accusation made, perhaps true, but which undercuts most of her life's worth while it is still being evaluated by expert sources. It would be inappropriate to ignore the source (the SFChron with the sister's comments) but until more can be found from reliable sources, this should be considered only an allegation until the sister's comments can be corroborated. --Masem (t) 00:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

"someone dead only a month is still likely covered by BLP" It's not "likely", it's actual policy ... see WP:BRDP. Usually they get at least six months, more if the community feels it's relevant, up to six years (I think). Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm more or less in agreement with Masem. As I pointed out to the block evader a few months ago we can't do OR, so their attempts to search tribal records etc were and are irrelevant, not something we would ever cover especially in a BLP (which was unquestionable then). It seems we have a source now and IMO it's enough we can include something but it will have to be limited. It may be that things will change over the next few weeks and more sources will emerge and we will cover more, perhaps even there will be little doubt in new sources and this will be reflected in our article. There's nothing wrong with that, this is how Wikipedia works. And while I have sympathy to those who feel the information is already out there and are unhappy with what they are regard as false information continuing to be presented in our articles in the meantime, this is how it has to work. Wikipedia always reflects/follows reliable secondary sources, it does not lead them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Per Masem and Nil Einne's comments, would the following be appropriate for inclusion to address the issue in the article?

According to Native American writer and activist Jacqueline Keeler who interviewed Littlefeather's sisters shortly after her death, her sisters alleged that Littlefeather's claim of Native American ancestry was fabricated and that their father was actually of Mexican Hispanic descent.

This makes it clear where the allegation is coming from as an attributed statement cited to the interviews, as opposed to a factual assertion in Wikivoice that the subject was not a Native American. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Keeler's name is relevant at this time (that might change if it turns out she made this up).

Shortly after her death, Littlefeather's biological sisters alleged in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, that Littlefeather's claim of Native American ancestry was fabricated and that their father was actually of Mexican Hispanic descent.

This is a clearer summary of what is reliable sourced so far. Nemov (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

• The SF Chronicle article is only a single stated opinion of its author. It is published in the news outlet's "Open Forum", which the org describes (on the article itself) as: "Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership." Without any check on the veracity of the opinion article, I don't see how it can be relied upon for anything other than, narrowly, assertions made by its author. There isn't even verification of the sisters' quotes by anyone other than the author, and the other primary sources brought up here - namely the tweets showing that one sister relied on the article's author for the original claim against identity - make it clear the opinion piece published in SF Chronicle has no business being considered reliable for anything other than Keeler's assertions. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

  There's too much WP:OR there for editors to consider at this time. Yes, this is an op-ed and that should be mentioned, however this is reliably sourced. Until there's something else from a WP:RS that debunks the sister's allegations it belongs in the article. Nemov (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

It is only a reliable source for Keeler's opinion per WP:RSEDITORIAL and should be attributed as such, if used. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

• As Littlefeather still falls under BLP as a recently deceased person, then we need to be careful how it's worded. The massive controversy over Keeler's claims regarding Ben Nighthorse Campbell's ancestry indicate that she may not, on her own, be reliable enough to pass BLP-muster. Additionally, "a simple phone-call to enrollment" is textbook original research, and even were it not, could only be used to demonstrate (lack of) enrollment in a recognised indigenous nation. I completely understand that appropriation of indigenous identity is an incredibly controversial topic but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, WP:NDNID is only advisory without wider community acceptance, and I would suggest that, going forward, the Indigenous Wikiproject try to obtain that community acceptance. Sceptre (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Update 1

I would appreciate further input with respect to an additional pair of sources - [16] and [17], which not yet in the article, but which I believe provided needed balancing to the Keeler opinion piece. Pinging all contibutors not engaged on the article. Thanks. @Sceptre, Nil Einne, and Masem: Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I recommending exercising some patience. This is a new story and it could change dramatically with new information. Consensus can take time. The current TALK page seems to be doing a good job so far. Nemov (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are you opposed to uninvolved experienced editors helping, exactly? I disagree - the current article is a BLP and NPOV violation. Hipocrite (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I offered you advice. You are free to ignore it. Nemov (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

A few comments from the Variety as an early counterbalance seems fine. (The AV Club is citing the Variety piece itself). --Masem (t) 01:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The weight should be on the variety piece since it is a secondary source to the controversy (which is the op-ed itself). Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

With regard to AV Club, it does bring an avenue to those who want to introduce the tweets of unverified people, because it is now possible to write: «AVClub reported that social media accounts disputed Keeler's research». What doesn't belong in the Littlefeather article is any sort of discussion regarding Keeler's bonafides: those should be included on Keeler's page, if those meet WP:BLP. But Littlefeather's entry is about Littlefeather, not about Keeler.XavierItzm (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Just coming here to present a new small wrinkle, on which consensus seems to be against me, but I am curious to hear others' opinions as I have never quite run across this. Editors added this piece by Roger Ebert, which says that Littlefeather was "not an Indian." So far, so good. For me, Ebert is a reliable source, and that should be usable...but for the fact that he refers to a "clarification" and copies, apparently verbatim, a letter from a lawyer that says exactly the opposite. Now, I don't think it is hard to understand what happened here, or to surmise Ebert's actual thoughts on the matter, but that said, the source says what it says. At first, the clarification was not used at all, which struck me as absolutely not appropriate. The clarification was then added, which seems more appropriate to me--but, ideally, I would not use it at all, as it essentially says "A" and "not A" at the same time. As I say, I reverted once, and things have since moved on, so I don't think it is exactly a live issue, but I was curious about the somewhat odd situation. Cheers, and thanks in advance for indulging me. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think Robert Ebert is a RS. He's a movie critic but not a news reporter, and his columns for the Chicago Sun Times are technically opinion columns. This is also from his website which makes it self-published under WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ebert is cited several thousands of times by Wikipedia. Ebert was an industry expert, including a deep and broad knowledge of its players. Ebert's entry on Wikipedia reads: film historian, journalist, screenwriter, and author. Anybody disputing Ebert's chops as journalist and film industry expert historian is welcome to edit Ebert's article, but I would recommend bringing WP:RS that the man was not a historian nor a journalist. The article being discussed here is published at the official Chicago Sun-Times web address and it is a factual Brando biopic, not a movie review. Finally, anyone disputing Ebert's reliability can head here. XavierItzm (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I see no evidence that the Sun Times retained editorial control over Ebert's website rather than acting as a domain host at the time. In fact, there was a disclaimer on his page [18] "The information and features included in this Web Site have been compiled from a variety of sources, are for informational and entertainment purposes only... This Web Site and all information it contains are provided "AS IS." By accessing or linking to this Web Site, you assume the risk that the information on this Web Site may be incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, or may not meet your needs and requirements." Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Right. Did you know The New York Times' Terms of Service reads «TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAWS, THE SERVICES AND ALL SOFTWARE ARE DISTRIBUTED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND»? [All caps theirs, not mine). You are going to require thicker stuff than this to dispute Roger Ebert's credibility. Second, when is a biopic of Marlon Brando by a historian not informational and for entertainment purposes? Third, did you notice that at the end of the lawyerly page you cited it says: «Contact Us For questions or comments regarding these Terms and/or the Web Site please contact jwcary@suntimes.com.» Where did you get that the Chicago Sun-Times is not responsible for the material published at its own website? XavierItzm (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

While I tend to agree with your underlying position here, there is a big difference between the disclaimer on the Ebert website--applying quite explicitly to the information on the page, and the Times disclaimer, applying to the software and "services." In other words, Ebert is saying "I can't necessarily vouch for all of this," while the Times is saying "if this website crashes your computer, you can't sue us." I don't particularly mind citing Ebert as an expert, though this particular usage is subject to my earlier objections--though I also note that those objections have been pretty effectively mooted by a recent CBS News article. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think we agree on the basics. BTW, it is a misreading of the text to think that the NYT's ToS are for software. The linked NYT Terms (see above) state: «the Services (including, but not limited to text, photographs, images, illustrations, designs, audio clips, video clips, “look and feel,” metadata, data, or compilations, all also known as the "Content")». The Services most certainly include the newspaper's content, which they distribute "as is" with zero warranties. Look, this is a very unproductive way to try and claim Roger Ebert is an unreliable film historian, journalist, screenwriter, and author, though I understand it is mostly not you. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not disputing Ebert's credibility as an expert on films. I am saying that HIS website, rogerebert.com is not subject to editorial oversight by the Chicago Sun-Times. Where do you get the idea that every portion of the "Digital Chicago" domain is reliable and subject to the same "rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy" as the Sun-Times news stories per WP:NEWSORG? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

The reliability of sources is not black and white. Roger Ebert writes opinion columns, as all movie critics do, and thus is a great source for an opinion about a movie, but would be a poor source on, say... thermodynamics. One only has to read the source to be able to tell it's an opinion column, because it's chalk full of his opinions. All newspapers have their op/ed columns which are not reliable for anything other than the author's opinion, even if they are reliable sources for their news articles. Op/ed columns are not subject to the same editorial scrutiny as a real news article (often none at all). In addition, Ebert apparently ran what amounts to a retraction at the bottom by printing the subject's lawyer's request, so the facts are questionable at best. Zaereth (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Pierre Dadak

Pierre Dadak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sure, they're no angel, but this page seems to be functioning as little more than an exposè of the subject, and seems to be pretty close to an attack page. It details content without immediate relevance to the subject (male rape in the Sudanese Civil War), and seems to be based heavily on a single source. It also seems to add labels to them which aren't appropriate. The whole thing is a bigger mess than I feel like cleaning up at the moment. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 01:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I did what I could since I can't read Polish, but at least it's not a play-by-play. RAN1 (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Jasmine Shimoda

Hello, I am the subject of a Wikipedia page with damaging and false information about me being added by a particular source. I have I edited the damaging I claims against me but they just get restored. I am not a public figure by any means and wish this biography / page to be deleted please so I do no have to endure this emotional stress and constant threat to my reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:570E:AA00:45E9:BEA6:793B:EFE4 (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I have restored the article to the state before the objected to information was added, and someone else has nominated for deletion. I agree that the section on an adult video career should not be in the article. It was sourced to a primary source for awards given to someone with a different name, and a single passing mention of having been someone's colleague before dating them, which certainly didn't cut the mustard when it comes to sourcing a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Hafsia Herzi

Hafsia Herzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A single purpose-account on a mission has readded again excessively long imbalanced information in a biography of a living person. Some of the information he added is outright false and defamatory. Among other things, the editor claims that the actress in question was long known as an Arab-hater. This is an extremely harmful accusation which is NOT backed by the French-language source provided. I already pointed this out when I previously removed the material, even linking to the Wikipedia guidelines in question. The BLP template has also been in display on the talk page for quite some time, not that it made any difference. Note that this single-purpose account first added the highly contentious material 3 years ago. After I removed it some weeks ago he suddenly makes a reappearance after 3 years (!) starting an edit-war about the material and not caring for any other subject. This appears to be a person with a very personal interest in the matter of question. It's also likely the editor is identical with this IP sockpuppet.

I've made a notice of this incident very early in this case because Hafsia Herzi's Wikipedia article has been viciously assailed by trolls in the past who inserted other defamatory material falsely claiming that she was a pornographic actress or falsely asserting that she had performed unsimulated sex on screen. In the page history you can see that some of these harmful claims stood uncorrected for months. This is why I think that this BLP page is in dire need of semi-protection and the single-purpose account should not be allowed to carry on like that.Lizavers (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Laurens van der Post

• Laurens van der Post (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I know that he has been dead for over 25 years, but I presume his daughter (and maybe the mother) is still alive. After his death it came out that in the early 1950s van der Post had a sexual relationship with and impregnated a 14 year old girl, who later gave birth to a daughter. NYTimes:And when it came to women, der Post was a bounder. In the early 1950's, when he was 46, he seduced the 14-year-old daughter of a wealthy South African winemaking family, who had been entrusted to his care during a sea voyage. She became pregnant, and although he sent her a small stipend, he never publicly acknowledged the daughter born of the relationship Observer: Documents found by the biographer J D F Jones, have confirmed allegations that Van der Post had a secret child after an illicit affair with a 14-year-old girl. After the author's death in 1996, Cari Mostert sensationally came forward to claim she was his illegitimate daughter and that her underage mother had been seduced during a boat trip to England. The article currently states that van der Post sexually abused the 14 year old girl. The sexual abuse language is supported by some more recent sources [19] [20]. A new editor wants to change this to an "affair". I strongly prefer the current language, but I would like to hear others thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Jacqueline Keeler

• Jacqueline Keeler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Source: TallBear, Kim (May 10, 2021). "Playing Indian Constitutes a Structural Form of Colonial Theft, and It Must be Tackled". Unsettle. Substack.

I'm opening a discussion here to discuss the reliability of an article published on self-publishing platform Substack for its use in a biography of a living person. The article was published by Kim Tallbear, a professor at the University of Alberta, on her own substack-hosted blog. I've argued that the source should not be used as a third-party source for facts related to the biography subject, since WP:SPS notes that [n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (emphasis in source, internal link omitted) and WP:BLPSPS notes that we should ever use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis in source, internal links omitted).

The article subject is Jacqueline Keeler, who is not Kim TallBear, though TallBear's substack is used in a section on Keeler's "Career and Activism" as a source for facts. The blogpost is evidently reliable for reporting what TallBear wrote on her own blog, but I don't think that this is the sort of thing that's appropriate to include in a BLP. I removed a reference to the source in this edit (and again in this edit), but reference to the self-published blogpost as a source for facts was restored in subsequent edits by Oncamera and Indigenous girl, respectively. My removal of the material sourced to a self-published blogpost was challenged explicitly on the talk page by CorbieVreccan, who said that self-published SMEs are fine to use in this context.

I'm bringing this to this board because I believe that the use of the self-published substack, while an expert source, violates our sourcing policies with respect to biographies of living persons, and I would like community discussion surrounding the appropriateness of the use of self-published SME sources in this article. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS is clear. WP:SPS is also clear. Substack is a self-publishing platform, and so Kim TallBear's Substack cannot be used as a source for Jacqueline Keeler or any other living person, in any article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I would further note that "pollennationmagazine.com" no longer exists and when it did exist, Keeler was apparently the EIC - it's not clear it is a reliable source (I would argue similarly for powwows.com which similarly does not appear to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The source from Pollen Nation was written by Keeler and is being used as an SPS in an WP:ABOUTSELF way to support (1) the fact that Keeler keeps list is kept in a google spreadsheet and (2) the date of the spreadsheet's release. Use (1) seems a bit superfluous, and I'll remove it from the article shortly as such, but I don't think it's a BLP issue per se. Use (2) seems fine. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Marius Stravinsky

The article about Marius_Stravinsky was recently filled with a link to the Times article that has absolutely no connection to the person and is therefore libelous. This person's page has been constantly edited with various defamatory information (see the story of edits). The link to Marius's official website has been removed without reason. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marius_Stravinsky&type=revision&diff=1116453683&oldid=1111530142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieHill (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

This addition[21] is clearly unfitting since the source (a generally good one) doesn't mention Stravinsky, so any connection is WP:OR. There's also WP:PROPORTION to consider. Ping to @ClassicPaparazzi1 who added the content. I fixed the WP:EL: [22] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thank you! Although the article doesn't mention Stravinsky explicitly, it is well known that Marina Safronova is his girlfriend (wife). Stravinsky even officially posted pictures with her on his Facebook account, the pictures are from his flat. It seems that Wikipedia is (should be) about true facts and not yet another platform for a person to portray himself in a falsified (much better) manner. ClassicPaparazzi1 (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Sock RAN1 (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS independent of the subject (it may not be), some WP:ABOUTSELF possibly allowed. Follow WP:BLP strictly and all will be well. Hopefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

And "well-known" seems a bit of a stretch:[23] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Noting that the Russian "official website" here [24] appears to be some sort of prank on or possibly harassment of the subject. More eyes on the article could be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Definitely an attack page. The correct website is [25]. I think we need to look further into EllieHill's relationship with Stravinsky. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

We should probably redact any edits that contain a link to the attack site. Definitely a BLP violation. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

No objections. @Blablubbs, are you up for it? This thread and the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I have revision-deleted parts of the article history per the "smears" and "harassment" bits of WP:RD2 and WP:RD3 – this is perhaps a debatable action, so I would invite other administrators to double-check. I don't think this thread needs redacting, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

CP1 has been blocked as a sock. This appears be part of a long running campaign against Stravinsky that has been going on for over a year, see Paparazzi1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The page should be indefinitely semi-protected to prevent further BLP vios from throwaway accounts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think an indef semi is going to fly at RFPP, so I've watchlisted it. RAN1 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I've blocked ClassicPaparazzi1 and semiprotected the article for a year. It looks like there have been similar issues on ruwiki as well. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

James Gordon Meek

I created an article for James Gordon Meek shortly after reading a Rolling Stone article about a FBI raid on his home earlier this year. It now appears that that article was not entirely correct. It implied that his home was raided due to his involvement in classified US government activities abroad. Now it has been revealed that the raid was for something else and that Meek has not “disappeared” but has been living with his mother. More recent articles have reported that resigning his position at ABC news was to save his colleagues from embarrassment.

Any eyes on the article would be great as I imagine there’s lots of conspiracy theories online. Thriley (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone is a rather poor source for anything except music or entertainment, per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. For contentious or controversial claims about living people, it should be strongly avoided. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I should have known better. I guess this is another nail in their coffin. Thriley (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution, per WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:RECENTISM, I've removed content sourced exclusively to Rolling Stone and the Raw Story (laundered by Salon), both red on WP:RSPS. It seems most other outlets covering this are highly gossipy: Radar Online[26] and the Daily Beast's "Confider" column [27]. Deadline.com simply uncritically recaps the Rolling Stone report [28], noting Rolling Stone is a sister publication. Notability may need to be re-evaluated. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions to Carlos Hank Rhon

Please could some experienced eyes take a look at the recent editions to Carlos Hank Rhon? This diff is the one that concerns me. I just blocked a bunch of CU-confirmed socks that were trying to remove the info, but I have my own concerns about it, in terms of the way it is phrased, and also that it appears to be reporting as fact an involvement in drug trafficking which I think are only accusations in a leaked report. There are some reliable sources there, but I think it needs to be reworked to ensure that we are complying with WP:V and WP:BLP. I don't want to get WP:INVOLVED in the content matter though, since in blocking the socks I have been acting in an administrative capacity at the page. Thanks in advance. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I did an initial rewrite to attribute the reports, since the settlement was the no-wrongdoing variety, I'll round it out by tomorrow. RAN1 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz and John Fetterman

A paragraph originally written for John Fetterman was today copied wholesale into the article on Oz. It's obvious to me that this is a thoroughly one-sided presentation of the issues it covers. So, I removed it on that basis. My removal has now been reverted (by someone who apparently doesn't know about WP:BRD). I don't intend to edit-war about it -- I'll leave it to others to evaluate, weigh in, act, etc. (I've added an NPOV tag to the Fetterman article.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the RSOPINION laundry list of media as synthesis. What is the other side for the debate negotiation reported by RS? How did RS report on the debate after it happened or is it too one-sided also? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The NY Times has a balanced assessment, including: "he was also fluent enough over the course of the hour to present his Democratic vision for a state that could determine control of the Senate." [29]. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure. The candidates' articles should focus on their respective debate performances. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul Morantz

In the last 24 hours 2 different IPs have edited Paul Morantz to add his death. A quick Google search has not found any news of his death, so I have reverted both times. Pending news of his death from reliable sources, his page should be monitored for attempts to add such to it. - Donald Albury 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I have now semi-protected the article for 2 days. Donald Albury 18:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Alex Epstein (American writer)

• Alex Epstein (American writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Subject has complained on twitter that his article was biased and advocated for people to "fix it" https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1585418634129809409 , which some infrequently active users have done. I just thought it was worth noting this here to let others assess if the removed content was justly removed or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The good news is that it looks like some users are already on this. The bad news is that some of these users are responding to the situation in a less-than-ideal fashion on the talk page. I had to template one user that was using edit summaries inappropriately, but I wonder if administrator involvement might be necessary to avoid an edit war on the article and a flame war on the talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul R. McHugh

Paul R. McHugh

I have read the book "The Perspectives of Psychiatry" (2nd edition) and several papers by Dr. McHugh, and I do not think that this Wikipedia page reflects his work or ideas. I think it is obvious that some agents are trying to defame him, with false interpretations especially regarding his views on homosexuality and transsexualism, sometimes using dubious sources or no source at all. I think the article needs a substantial revision and new additions to the article should be reviewed regularly, since it will inevitably include information on some delicate matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.4.121 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Going to need specifics of what you believe is unsourced or poorly sourced. A quick glance shows much of his views are quoted verbatim. Slywriter (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand that I should not quote material from the article, and I am not familiar with linking to "diffs" so perhaps I can give two examples instead. The third sentence in the introduction is an example of the kind of defamatory information I was referring to in my original post, and it lacks a reference. As another example, in the last sentence of the introduction, the first of the two claims uses a reference that 1) Seems to have inserted the word "homosexuality" in Dr. McHughs statement, and 2) Perhaps more importantly, the reference in turn refers to an original interview on another website but this interview seems to have been removed, or at least I cannot find it. For these reasons I would consider the reference to be unreliable. 81.233.4.121 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I've added specificity to who criticized but as to the rest of your concerns, the issues discussed in the introduction are clearly sourced in the body of the article and there is nothing to indiciate the sources have taken his words out of context. If you have sources that dispute the account of the sources currently in the article, please provide them. Beyond that, there appears little that can be done. Slywriter (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

You can get the diffs by clicking the prev links or comparing selected revisions in the history. For reference, if you post the following, it will render as Wikipedia:

[https://en.wikipedia.org Wikipedia]

RAN1 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Gordon (Phish)

It seems the community consensus has always been that his arrest should be discussed on this page and for years the same people have tried to cover this up. Isn't there a way to lock this so that Phish's people can't keep removing the info? Nobody believes that the Hells Angels caught him with a young girl, beat him up, and in the end it was all just a misunderstanding everybody knows that is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbrunson (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Kjbrunson, why the heck should this incident from 19 years ago be mentioned? The charges were dropped promptly. There was no indictment, no trial and no conviction. What are you trying to accomplish? It doesn't seem to align with WP:BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Peter Galbraith

Saucysalsa30 has a reputation as a remarkably extreme pro-Iraqi Ba'th Party partisan editor, making edits/statements to the effect that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre and the attack was inflated by a factor of 50 (which is not consistent with declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents), that the Anfal campaign was "made up" by Kanan Makiya (though his own source directly contradicted him), that United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War was only $250 million rather than the billions reported in mainstream sources, that the Iraqi invasion of Iran was an act of self-defense caused by Iranian "interference in Iraq," and citing official statements by Saddam Hussein ([30]) and the Democratic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Arabistan ([31]) to refute reliable sources. (When I called him out on this, he reported me to WP:ANI, where he narrowly escaped a BOOMERANG, and WP:AN3, which ended in a BOOMERANG.)

Now, Saucysalsa30 has turned his attention to an article where this sort of behavior is particularly unwelcome: Peter Galbraith, where both WP:BLP and WP:AP2 considerations directly apply. At Talk:Peter Galbraith, Saucysalsa30 described Galbraith (without sources) as "a politically-motivated and controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially," which may constitute a BLP violation (although we tend to give editors more slack on talk pages). On the article itself, Saucysalsa30 made contested edits and has reverted three times in less than 24 hours ([32], [33], [34]) to reinstate them without consensus. The thrust of these edits is that during his tenure on the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Galbraith singlehandedly concocted ("his claim of") additional Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians shortly following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, but "Despite Galbraith's claim, physicians from the United Nations, International Red Cross, and Turkey did not find any evidence of chemically inflicted wounds."

I did not revert Saucysalsa30's edits regarding the lack of "evidence of chemically inflicted wounds." However, I noticed that Galbraith's 2008 book The End Of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End (which was already cited in the relevant section of the article) directly responded to this criticism, and decided it would be appropriate (and consistent with our BLP policy) to include the subject's response to the potentially serious implications of Saucysalsa30's proposed additions. In the book, referring to the work done by a team led by Chris Van Hollen and himself, Galbraith writes:

Our team talked to hundreds of survivors. Chris and I were struck by two things: the passivity with which most described these horrific events and, second, the absence of physical trauma. Except for a few refugees with burn marks, no one seemed physically hurt. We later realized that the absence of other injury was in itself a "negative proof" that chemical weapons had been used. If the Iraqi offensive had been a conventional one, there would have been fighting among the peshmerga and the army. We would have expected to see survivors with gunshot and shrapnel wounds. No one had these injuries. It was, as Chris observed, like Sherlock Holmes's dog that didn't bark. ... [Our report] concluded: "To dismiss the eyewitness accounts, however, would require one to believe that 65,000 Kurdish refugees confined to five disparate locations were able to organize a conspiracy to defame Iraq and these refugees were able to keep their conspiracy secret."

Again, when I introduced a short excerpt from the subject's own book directly responding to the accusation that the chemical attacks may have been fabricated—while retaining almost all of Saucysalsa30's text—Saucysalsa30 reverted to reinstate his preferred version three separate times, leaving edit summaries that falsely labelled my edits as "vandalism" or "self-admitted disruptive editing" (which is not consistent with the widely-accepted definition of vandalism used by Wikipedia editors). Saucysalsa30 has evidently decided that I am a "vandal" or "enemy" who must be reverted at all costs without any attempt at discussion, consensus-seeking, or compromise, and that he effectively now WP:OWNs a sensitive AP2 article about a living person—whom he can freely disparage and accuse of fraud while omitting the subject's response.

To me, the only question is whether this serious, almost WP:NOTHERE-level misconduct belongs in this forum, at WP:AN3, or at WP:AE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)