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.

Request for Removal of Autobiography Tag from Eamonn Fingleton's Biography

• Eammon Fingleton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

From Blindside1995:

This article has been tagged as an “autobiography”. I am the subject of the article and would like this tag to be removed, as it is not true.

Up to a few weeks ago I had not looked at the page in nearly three years and I was unaware of the tag.

It would appear that I -- or someone close to me -- did do some significant editing at the time the entry was launched more than fifteen years ago (I actually have no memory of this but Wikipedia's record seems clear). Regardless, as per the article's edit history, those initial contributions now constitute less than 10 percent of the article's length. The vast bulk of the article has been created and edited by neutral parties with no connection to me. I therefore submit that the tag should be deleted. Blindside1995 (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@WhinyTheYounger: for their opinion since they added the tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the tag given that a bulk of the article as it stands now was written by Hubbert545. Outstanding issues remain — primarily the very heavy reliance on primary sources — but I don't feel those warrant another tag, personally. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Hubbert545 appears to be a paid editor, and 100% of their contributions are about this person and their book. That does not resolve the issue. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:52, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

So:

• Efingleton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created the article
• Blindside1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) essentially admits to being the subject.

Of those making non-trivial contributions (rather than the numerous well-intentioned efforts to clean up the PR),

• Zclex30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA
• Inrake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA
• Rogerferris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no history other than this and creating two other articles with indicia of paid editing
• Hubbert545 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA
• Blakedylan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has no other edits other than creating an article on the subject's brother, also with indicia of paid editing
• Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned from BLPs and since banned as a sockpuppeteer
• Riteboke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) banned as a sock of what looks to me like a WP:UPE farmer

This is about as inauspicious as it gets. I removed the huge swathes of self-sourced puffery ($SUBJECT has a hugely important opinion on X, source, $SUBJECT's Forbes Contributor article laying out his opinion on X) and... there's virtually nothing left. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Robert B. Spencer

• Robert B. Spencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I feel that there is potential borderline libel labeling him as anti-muslim rather than anti-islam, all of the sources I've read really seem like smear pieces based on everything I have read and heard and from his own website and his books. This paints him as a racist when he only condemns islamic extremism and the religion of islam. I'm arguing from the same ground that transgender women identify as women, adherents of islam identify as muslim. The closest thing he has made to anything even remotely anti-muslim is the title of a book "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West" where he is clearly referring to the religion islam and not the actual muslim people, he only cites islamic sources and scholars to back up his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.131.151 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, several things. I'll start by saying that using "So-and-so is an anti-muslim." is extremely poor writing, especially as the opening sentence. It sounds childish and completely unprofessional. Above all else, he's a blogger, and the reader needs to know this first before telling us what he is known for blogging about. Name calling in an obvious attempt to illicit an emotional response from the reader is... childish.

That said, I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference. There is no muslim race, so arguments of racism are moot. People of all races are in fact muslim. Also, your argument about transgender is flawed. Napoleon self-identified as a great leader, yet the people of France disagreed, and my brother identifies as a nice guy when in fact he's kind of an a-hole. The subject may say he's not anti-muslim, but his actions may tell a different story, and that's the thing we're interested in. Muslims don't "identify" as muslims, that's just what they are. People only have to identify as something when they are not that thing, and usually it's a case of trying to unconsciously convince themselves rather than others. If you truly believe, then no one needs convincing. (The person we know least is almost always ourselves, so humans spend a lot of times trying to convince themselves otherwise. The whole field of psychiatry is built on that foundation.) So we don't always take people's word for it when they self identify as something, except in certain cases where it's morally or socially right to do so, such as gender or sexual orientation, but for most things it's far better to let the actions of the subject do the talking.

Which brings this full circle. It's going to be difficult to achieve any kind of consensus with the arguments you're using, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. The sources do use the phrase "anti-muslim", and for many that's going to be a difficult hurdle to get past. Of course, the sources are the bottom of the barrel as the hierarchy of sources go, being news outlets, and the articles themselves are poorly written. Good writing doesn't use name calling. Name calling is just a way of invoking emotions and the part of the brain that categorizes and stereotypes, rather than than the part that works things out logically and rationally, which is a great propaganda tactic but also incredibly obvious to anyone with half a wit, which is why it comes off as child-like. Better would be to let the actions do all the talking and let the reader come to their conclusions on their own. It's not only better writing, but is far more believable that way. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Spencer is well known as a prominent figurehead of the "counter-jihad" movement, which is widely described as islamophobic by reliable sources. The IP just seems to be unhappy with the way RS describe Spencer. I wouldn't oppose a change to "anti-Islam" though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe so, I've never heard of him before. Doesn't change the fact that it's poor writing. That's the way people speak in the here and now, and it's expected from a newspaper because they report in the present tense and the first person, plus they make more money when they can stir up emotions. Encyclopedias aren't written that way. For an example, just check any really good article. Now I'm not drawing any parallels here whatsoever, but just as an example, check out the article on Adolph Hitler. We don't start off by saying he was an anti-semite. In fact, we don't say it at all. No need to, his actions speak too loudly to hear it anyhow. We say he promoted anti-semitism. We explain all the anti-semitic things he did and said. At best it would come off as unprofessional and childish, and at worst it would insult the reader's intelligence by pointing out the obvious. As I said, it's far more convincing that way. Zaereth (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for my poorly written arguments, but I just feel that there are several logical fallacies within the arguments for painting him as anti-muslim, what I am getting at is that muslim is an identity and islam is a religion and the tenants of that religion identify as muslim, but spencer does not attack muslims as people he attacks their viewpoints using their own scholar's sources and religious texts. Possibly a "Courtier's reply" or some sort of appeal to authority fallacy in which the writers of the articles are not subject matter experts on the topic. Virtually all of his work covers jihad and islamic extremism so I feel it is unfair to state him as categorically anti-muslim and feel that anti-islam matches the broader context that his works cover. 69.154.131.151 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

No insult intended. Please take it as constructive criticism in order to help you. I understand your point. It just seems like a distinction without a difference. I could say, as a Viking, I'm anti-catholic. (Not that I am, just an example.) Does that mean I dislike catholics, or catholicism? Since a religion is made up of the people who believe in it, not the other way around, then does it really make a difference?

See, this sort of thing comes up here a lot, whether it's anti-muslim, anti-vaccines, or moon-landing deniers, there's this natural tendency of people to want to simply slap an emotional label on it that will invoke people's prejudices. It's a tactic as old as time itself. The Romans did it. The Nazis did it. The Allies did it. The KKK did it. We're still doing it today. Small children do it. It's far easier to slap a label on something because then you can define that subject simply by the connotations that label invokes. It goes to the very strengths and weaknesses of how the vertebrate mind operates. (For more, see User:Zaereth#Little boxes.) It relies on people's stereotypes and prejudices without all those actual facts that get in the way of achieving the goal intended by the author, which is why it's such a good propaganda tool. People can try to rationalize it in a million different ways, but the simple fact is that people use these labels because their emotions tell them to, not their brains.

But it's poor writing. We shouldn't insult the reader's intelligence by telling them he's anti-muslim or anti-islam, regardless if either or both of those is true. Look at it from the reader's point of view. It's would be like saying "Darth Vader is evil." That would make me think, "He blew up an entire planet, you moron. Don't you think I can see that for myself?" In writing there's an old saying: "Show. Don't tell." The best thing to do is to rewrite it to show me the subject is anti-whatever. Don't come right out and tell me it. Give me some credit for having a brain. It's more difficult to do that way, but that's what makes it good writing. Zaereth (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We tell the reader his source of notability. In this case, being anti-Muslim. Without "JihadWatch", we would likely not have an article on him. It's what he is: an Islamophobic troll. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Vexxed

Persistent addition of unsourced claims of death. I can't find any mention on Google so far. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

• Semi-protected (thanks for your reversions). Will keep an eye on it. On a separate issue, is this person actually notable? Black Kite (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • That's a good question. Thank you, Black Kite. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

  I just removed it again, sourced fomr a distinctly unreliable forum. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Shani Louk

I believe the article for Shani Louk is a violation of privacy and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It should be either deleted or redirected fully to Re'im music festival massacre.

WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:BLP1E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:89F9:DCA2:1:2:6241:F50B (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

This matter is now pending at articles for deletion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Lois Wright

I still have yet to figure out how to "twinkle back" or revert past one history summary. I cannot find anywhere online to back the claim that this BLP Lois Wright is deceased. Could someone restore to the original version? unless I'm missing something like an Obit. The editor is not registered so either it is just an innocent edit or they know the BLP and wanted to update the page. Regardless, there is no source to back the claim given. Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyTheGrump. Maineartists (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

@Maineartists and AndyTheGrump: It's not a sterling source, but I have no reason to doubt the announcement of her death on Facebook (archived link). Perhaps that can be used until better RSes appear. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that citing Facebook in such circumstances would fall afoul of WP:BLPSPS. We should probably wait for an obituary or other WP:RS source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, facebook isn't good enough. There's no editorial oversight and just no way of knowing if it's true, a bad joke, a hoax, or even someone trying to fake their own death. Declaring someone dead is a huge deal, and we would much rather have an article that simply hasn't reported someone's death than to report it and end up being wrong. An obituary from a local newspaper is usually good for that, if you can find one. If the family is complaining that we haven't reported it ourselves, then I would suggest to them to write an obituary and submit it to their local newspaper. Newspapers won't print one automatically, so someone has to submit it, but then we would have a reliable source we could easily use. Zaereth (talk)

Wu Yanni & Lin Yuwei

Weird situation where western media claims a picture of two Chinese athletes hugging each other was sensored, but users in talk have provided sources to Chinese websites that show images are still available on Chinese websites. Not too sure how to approach this situation.

Also, edit on Wu Yanni's page here seems to be WP:COATRACK. the results of other athletes is off tangent. edit keeps getting returned.

I haven't looked into this deeply, but e.g. this BBC article claims that the images have been removed from Weibo but that some Chinese news articles still [show] a photo of the two athletes. This seems to agree with the talkpage comments.

As for the content about the 2022 Asian Games, the relevance to Wu Yanni's career seems clear to me; exactly what text should be included can be discussed on Talk:Wu Yanni but I don't see it as coatracking or a BLP concern. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

i found a video on Weibo that shows them hugging each other at the 1:05-1:07 mark of the video (first posted by the Chinese track and field team). the reportedly sensored image of them hugging with the numbers 6 and 4 can be clearly seen. Prior to them hugging, you can see them stand next to each other with the numbes 6 and 4. if a user decides to scroll through the media feed on weibo, they'll find the image on different media posts.

https://m.weibo.cn/search?containerid=100103type%3D1%26q%3D%E5%90%B4%E8%89%B3%E5%A6%AE%20%E6%9E%97%E9%9B%A8%E8%96%87#&video LilAhok (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Beno Axionov

Beno Axionov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Materialscientist. Please do not remove content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Beno Axionov.

Content removal does not appear constructive.

You have removed the story of Beno Axionov from reliable sources -Theater Beno Axionov / Contributor Valentina Skliarova / Chişinău F.E.P. "Tipografia Centrală" 2006 160 p.: foto ISBN 978-9975-78-480-1 Library of Congress https://id.loc.gov/resources/works/15083722.html https://id.loc.gov/authorities/names/n2007089732.html and Larisa Shorina The World Through the Eyes of Theater: history of the State Russian Drama Theater named after A.P. Chekhov - Chișinău F.E.P. "Tipografia Centrală" — 192 p. ISBN 9975-9634-3-9 Russian State Library https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01002417614 The data you deleted exists from many sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IonCon2 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

You should first discuss your concerns at the article's talk page, rather than coming straight here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this would be the articles talk page. I would also suggest reading WP:BRD which discusses how best to deal with such situations. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Narumon Pinyosinwat

• Narumon Pinyosinwat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

For the past few days a team of new and unregistered editors have been fluffing this biography of a Thai politician. A short section in the bio describes her being ousted from Cabinet and her government portfolios, cited to two articles in the Bangkok Post. I don't know about reliability of this source, but the first citation supports the article content while the second only really does tangentially and possibly should be removed. The new editors have been removing this section and replacing it with a narrative that she resigned and was then appointed to a different position, but this narrative has no sources at all. They have also been peppering the bio with honorifics counter to MOS:HONORIFIC.

I would appreciate more eyes on this. I have warned one of the editors, but each time one is reverted a new one shows up a day or two later. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Toni Storaro

I am pretty sure that Toni Storaro was born in Kardzhali and his sons too please don't post fake information and where is the proove that he was from turkish descent?

I though he was from pomak origin since him and his sons don't speak turkish

1. toofake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.42.162 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The one cited source in the article says that he was born in Shumen and is of Turkish ethnicity, at least according to Google translate. Do you have any source for the claim that he is Pomak or that he was born in Kardzhali? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Lauren Williams (journalist)

Lauren Williams (journalist) This article has a picture of the wrong person. The Lauren Williams in the picture is a faculty member at UC Berkley and teaches math. There is at least one picture of the Journalist Lauren Jones in the cited sources, and the two are clearly different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thmsgrdn (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the incorrect photo, @Thmsgrdn, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Sun Yafang employment history

There is a disagreement with another editor regarding the employment history of Sun Yafang. A report by Open Source Enterprise quotes other media sources in China that Sun had worked for the country's intelligence agency. Those sources have not been verified yet by the other editor, and I am not familiar with them, but I believe the claim needs additional verification. Initially I added a template to the Huawei article.[1] It was removed by the other editor, who also restored the information after I removed it.[2] Is request for comments a good way to handle this? It affects at least two articles simultaneously. Discussion sections are here and here. CurryCity (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

RFCs are generally a last resort, not the first. First, you need to have discussions that better explain to outsiders what this is all about. The place to begin is to have a discussion on the article's talk page. If that fails to reach a consensus, then WP:DRN is a good place to go for some helpful mediation. If that fails, then it's time to start thinking about an RFC. This noticeboard is more for reporting violations of BLP policy in specific.

I did look at the article's history, which gave me a better idea of the dispute (but don't count on everyone to do that). Anyhow, the CIA is a primary source and therefore should not really be used for this type of info. In addition to being like using a police report or other government documents, it requires too much interpretation by the reader --and a lot of background information to be interpreted properly-- which is why we rely on secondary sources. For example, the CIA is far different than they're portrayed in the movies. Unlike the FBI or the police, the CIA is not a law enforcement agency. They usually don't go around shooting people, and mostly have rather boring jobs of gathering information. Reading newspapers. Gathering an unconsolidated mixture of facts, rumors, and stuff they heard through the grapevine. They gather all they can get and then spend the rest of their lives trying to separate out the wheat from the chaff. They're dealing with real intel, misinformation, disinformation, and other methods of counterintelligence based upon mistrust and suspicion. Not the type of thing a mere Wikipedian would be expected to interpret properly.

That said, the Washington Post article is a good one. It's a secondary source and we can rely on their interpretations of the CIA report. However, it's not neutral to give only one side of the story without noting where the CIA reportedly got this info, which allegedly was from a Chinese newspaper article, or giving the other side where the company spokesperson denied these allegations. Does that make sense? In other words, based on the Wa Post article, it seems like info that belongs in the article but, as written in our article, it also seems far too one-sided to be neutral when compared to what Wa Post says. Whether it's undue or balanced is another thing to consider altogether, since we only have the one secondary source thus far, but that's best discussed by involved editors who are very familiar with the subject and the sources. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Not the Post but the Washington Times which is not considered as reliable as the Post.[3] I'm thinking there may be an UNDUE issue here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Another editor has indeed added a Washington Post citation in addition to CBC News[4][5] so that addresses my concern. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It should still say reported, not as a fact, because Washington Post quotes a 2017 Chinese magazine essay "under her name", CBC quotes James Andrew Lewis from CSIS, the CIA piece quotes a 2010 Chinese media article, and Washington Times quotes the CIA piece. CurryCity (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Huw Edwards

Some time ago this news anchor was accused by a tabloid newspaper of paying for pictures from an underage person. The underage person themself denied this and the police said there was no crime. The WP page however continues to state information that is defamatory and whenever I try to remove it editor(s) bring it back. Some of the 2023 Suspension section is defamatory but because these allegations were widely reproduced it is very easy to find reputable sources.

1) The WP page says "The Sun's subsequent reporting said the contact began when the teenager was 17, without specifying when explicit photos were first exchanged." This statement should be removed because its WP:TABLOID, and implies he's committed a crime.

2) The following passage should be removed "A timeline was established that the initial complaint about Edwards's behaviour had been made to the BBC by a family member of the young person on 18 May, with a phone conversation taking place the following day." This statement should be removed because we are not a tabloid investigation team.

3) The following passage should be removed "A second person accused Edwards of sending "abusive, expletive-filled messages" and a third accused Edwards of breaking COVID-19 lockdown rules in February 2021" because its trying to build a case for his criminality from minor stuff. Desertarun (talk) 10:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Re 1, there is no such implication because it is not written in WP:WIKIVOICE.

Re 2, there's no original research or investigation going on here, merely a reflection of what reliable sources have said about the BBC's investigation into the reports; the reliable source in this case ironically being BBC News's report on BBC management's investigation.

RE 3, again the article is not trying to "build a case" but merely reflect on what was reported about the investigations into Edwards in the aftermath of The Sun's reporting.

The article makes no assertion regarding the truthfulness or otherwise of The Sun's reporting. None of the sources used are The Sun itself because that is not a reliable source; instead all the references are to solid, reliable secondary sources. This was(/is) a major episode in Edwards' life and any biographical article on him would be remiss not to include a section on it. I don't see any policy-based reason for removing the sections mentioned above, they are all well sourced and don't add undue weight. WaggersTALK 10:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

WP has its own very strict rules on defamation and all of this isn't passing those rules. Using reliable sources to verify what a tabloid newspaper says is highly problematic and editors are re-adding highly contentious material on that basis. Desertarun (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The onus is on you to specify precisely which rules you think are being broken here. Again, nobody is "using reliable sources to verify what a tabloid newspaper says" in this article. WaggersTALK 11:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Does the section need to exist? Well, yes. But I'm pretty sure that (a) the section doesn't need to be that long or detailed to say that "no evidence of criminality was found", yet it feels the need to say that four times (b) the section doesn't need to open with an unreliable tabloid rag's quote about Edwards ("sordid" - really?), and (c) it doesn't need to end with a sentence from various randoms accusing him of things with no evidence. And if you'd like a policy, WP:UNDUE. Black Kite (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

It could definitely be pared back per WP:DUE and doesn't need its own section header. But as long as The Sun's claims are attributed to The Sun and not presented as fact, there's no defamation. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm unable to trim it because, it all gets undone immediately. I'm unable to mark the section as UNDUE because that gets removed immediately. Desertarun (talk) 11:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try discussing proposed changes and getting consensus for them on the talk page instead of just making them on the article. WaggersTALK 12:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way I agree the section needs trimming down a bit but the assertion that there's some kind of defamation is ridiculous. I'm not sure how much belongs in the BBC section and how much (if any) should go under Personal Life as there's clearly a bit of overlap. WaggersTALK 12:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

If it was only a tabloid such as The Sun (United Kingdom) making these allegations, there would be a problem with BLP. However, by now The Sun allegations against Edwards have been reported in just about every reliable source as the reason for his suspension in July 2023. There were also other allegations afterwards, and these were also reported in reliable sources. It is not the job of Wikipedia to police what reliable sources say. Even the BBC website explains why Edwards was suspended. Maybe we should accuse the BBC of defamation of Edwards if this sort of logic is going to be used.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree - and I also agree that this is something that should have been discussed on the article talk page first. The OP has posted precisely one edit there ...and it's notice of this thread. I'm sure that there's trimming that could be agreed (on the talk page) but fundamentally the article needs to explain why one of the most prominent and ubiquitous people in UK television has suddenly disappeared from on British TV screens - something which, as IanMacM points out, the BBC's own website does. DeCausa (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Its been done. Regards for WP:BOLD to ♦IanMacM♦. Desertarun (talk) 19:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sidney Powell

And in schadenfreude news, Sidney Powell has pled guilty to six counts in Georgia.

However, there are multiple sections about this case in Sidney Powell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and we are essentially saying the same thing in the first para (because it's kind of important to an article on a lawyer), the end of the lede, the section on Georgia, and the section on criminal indictments. There must be a way of streamlining this? Guy (help! - typo?) 15:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. This is an important story and will have more information to come as time goes by. For now, it should be simply stating the facts of the plea deal, which are clear and without ambiguity. This section should be narrowed and streamlined. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Zehra Sayers

The page for Zehra Sayers has been modified by a user who removed most of her achievements, and focused the page on an anonimous letter published by the think-tank The Paris Institute for Critical thinking that accuses Sayers of financial fraud. The other cited source is a website in turkish that seems to be just a law article. I removed the libellious paragraph, but the user put it back in. I note that this user seems to have worked on only one other page which is... for the Paris Institute for Critical thinking. It seems to me this the same person published the anonimous letter and now is trying to defamate Sayers through Wikipedia, which is just not ok. Materials enthusiast (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I initially just removed the text which was not supported by the sources, but on reflection I think that per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't include this accusation at all without much better sourcing, so I've removed the whole paragraph. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:17, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Mika Tosca

Apparently, Mika Tosca posted some offensive and unwise remarks about the Israel-Palestine conflict to Instagram. Her remarks have been picked up by unreliable sources like the Daily Mail, NYPost and Washington Times, also by some not-blacklisted but also lower-quality sources like the local Sinclair outlets. Tosca is transgender, and there may be some anti-trans or culture war issues underlying. It may be that a brief mention is eventually due, but I am not seeing it yet. The situation could use more eyes from BLP experts. (The article is semi-protected already.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

These types of edits fall under WP:PIA and the article may be eligible for WP:ECP if this continues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Mia Khalifa

Several editors have made POV edits[6][7][8][9] in the Mia Khalifa article over the last week about her comments over the Israel - Gaza conflicts which has had some impact on her career. Since I believe these edits fall under WP:PIA and subject to 1RR, I need additional eyes on this article. Most of the edits are from newer accounts so I have also requested ECP as an arbitration sanction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

The article is now ECP'd.[10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Sssniperwolf

Several of the remarks under the "Controversies" are contentious and could possibly be seen as defamatory. Keep in mind all of these sentences have exactly 0 sources, let alone reliable ones

(Redacted)

I suggest we remove the entire "Controversy" section until the POV gets removed and proper sources is added--Trade (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Since I was asked to comment here, I will agree that the controversies section should be removed in its entirety, since it's unsourced and as such violates WP:BLP. As I've marked the article for deletion per WP:G10, I also believe we should go further and delete the article as almost entirely negative and completely unsourced. Considering this thread at AN, the draft should also be salted. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think we should salt the title of the draft? This is the sixth time it's getting re-created Trade (talk) 22:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

According to the logs, administrator Ponyo has already done so. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yup, I protected it to match the main space protection. No need to let the disruption slide into draft space as BLP applies project wide (including this page, so I've redacted the BLP violations from above as well).-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:38, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the redaction, I overlooked that factor. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

• User:CoronaEditor/sandbox/SSSniperWolf
• User:Hahahahalalalala/sandbox
• User:Gameramy121amygamer121/sandbox
• User:Mason Morris/sandbox

Should these user pages be deleted under the Sssniperwolf draft ban? One of the pages even have a draft template --Trade (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Meh. They're all long abandoned. I zapped two of them as they contained a bunch of unsourced personal info, but the other two aren't that concerning.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Jasbir Puar

I feel it important to add a Controversy section to the bio of living person, because its important that people are aware of her antisemitism. This is fair, as such a section exists for e.g. David Duke, using the ADL profile to highlight his antisemitism. The ADL have also referenced Jasbir Puar's antisemitism here: https://nynj.adl.org/news/vassarcollege/

Here is the diff showing the section I added on the right. It has been removed for apparently using partisan sources.

Can I get consensus for adding this section? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jasbir_Puar&diff=prev&oldid=1180938005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacker1968 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

You should find stronger sources that are not WP:RSOPINION to discuss these points. Also keep in mind about WP:RGW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm the editor who removed the content for multiple reasons. The overriding reason is that WP:BLP applies; adding a "controversies" section header, followed by two allegations/quotes sourced from partisan sources, does not meet the requirements of BLP or WP:NPOV. If there are reliable NPOV sources regarding antisemitism by Jasbir Puar, the such material can be added to the article in a manner that meets our policies regarding living persons, neutrality and WP:DUE. Jacker1968 has recieved two WP:PIA notifications on their talk page, but judging by their recent edits I don't think they understand the requirements for editing in this topic area.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:WaffleTime

The "Controversy" section is potentially defamatory and does not contain any sources Trade (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted that per BLPCRIME for the most part, and the fact that it was unsourced. When you see something like that please feel free to delete it on sight. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Do i have to report it here each time or is there just a template i can use instead? Trade (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not necessarily, unless they start restoring it. However, in cases like this it wouldn't hurt to ask an admin for revision deletion to eradicate it from the history. Zaereth (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Vice.com journalist commentary included in JP Sears

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Vice.com_and_transphobia_description, but that discussion should have been put here, rather than there. I am notifying BLP/N follows to comment there as the discussion was already started. Graywalls (talk) 06:13, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Mike Schmidt (attorney)

I want to mention who he is married to in the page. While it's Facebook, given the context, I believe it passes the reliability requirement for this purpose. Any objections? https://www.facebook.com/mikeschmidt4da/videos/a-message-from-clare-schmidt/233708147896350/ https://www.mikeschmidtforda.com/ is his official campaign page which is of no concerns about authenticity and that Facebook account mikeschmidt4da is the same account that is linked from there, and the video was posted by the campaign page administrator, not a commentator. Graywalls (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Please review the policies about this with WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPNAME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Pyrocynical (YouTuber)

The "controversy" section contains allegations of criminal conduct and suffers from a serious lack of sources, sources being unreliable (Proving Pyrocynical's Guilt - Turkey) and sentences that comes off as original research and the authors own personal opinion rather verified factsTrade (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

The OS team declined to delete revisions so i am bringing it up here--Trade (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, that page is a big "nope". BLP violations, unsourced allegations, copyright issues, etc. WP:TNT most definitely applies here, so I've deleted it. Black Kite (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Might wanna keep an eye out for Pyrocynical and Draft:Pyrocynical in case of recreation.--Trade (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Welp, looks both of those were salted. Guess we are never getting an article about him now. Could you salt Draft:Pyrocynical (YouTuber) as well?-Trade (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just watchlisted it instead. If someone is that desperate to recreate it, they'll simply use a slightly different title. Black Kite (talk) 22:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Muhammad Sawalha

Found this article at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Muhammad_Sawalha. Huge sections of quite serious allegations made against this individual are unsourced. Really needs thorough trimming/sourcing. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I've cleaned it up as much as I could.[11] There was a lot of allegations based on WP:BLPPRIMARY material that was removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts -- But you removed sourced references to his controversial purchases of council housing in London at a discount of more than ₤100,000 in a Jewish neighborhood near two synagogues and also left undisturbed THIS in the lede: "to help the besieged Palestinian people", which violates POV and SYNTHESIS.

Sawalha helped found the Muslim Association of Britain and was also requested by the London's Metropolitan Police to become a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque. In addition, he signed the 2009 Istanbul Declaration, which reaffirms resistance as a valid means to oppose Israeli state terrorism, illegal occupation and war crimes against the civilian Palestinian population" -- violates POV and SYNTHESIS, among other sections, for those of us who haven't memorized the entire ever-expanding WP canon.

And "was also requested by the London's Metropolitan Police to become a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque" is unsourced and not found anywhere in BLP article.

He also holds British citizenship which is easily confirmed by RS. 50.75.202.186 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2023 (UTC)