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.

Danny Watts

This article is about Danny Watts a notable retired motorsport athlete who has a class victory at le mans among other accomplishments. He is also known for being one of the first high profile racecar drivers to come out as homosexual.

I am new to this site and I'm not really sure what to do about this situation and I don't want to get blocked or into an editing war with my first edit. Various Mobile IPs seem to be changing, reverting, and deleting sections without providing references or making a summary of their change. They also seem to be continually deleting references in the article. I put up a discussion post about the personal life section because I was hoping that I missed something or just didn't provide high enough quality sources but they have not engaged with it and have continued to change the page.

The crux of the issue is that this is a BLP about an LGBT athlete who had a rather high profile coming out. The change that sparked my initial editing is that the mobile editors keep trying to add the word "regrettably" to the sentence about him being gay and they also keep adding a sentence about him being in a heterosexual relationship with a bunch of superfluous details (like her being his soulmate and stuff.) Both of these changes have no verifiable sources that I can find after hours of digging through the internet. Diff of my sourced edits and the unsourced changes they have tried to revert it to.

What would you recommend be done in this situation? The changes aren't particularly heinous but they also do not seem neutral and, from what I can tell, are unverifiable. I am worried that his page is being manipulated due to the profile and identity of the person in question as well as the sensitive nature of that particular topic. I don't know why they would want to change that section continuously or outright remove it and the references I provided. They also are not engaging in discussion so I don't know what else I can do other than just continually revert the changes.

The last change was by the same mobile IP that re-added the unsourced changes I removed and they just completely removed the personal life section and added their changes into his career. I have reverted that but I will refrain from more because I do not want to be blocked.

Thanks a bunch! Pmcmichen (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Pmcmichen and welcome to Wikipedia! At the time I write this things seem to have calmed down [1], the current problem I see is a significant lack of inline WP:BLP-good sourcing, perhaps a bit of promo-language, and I'm wondering if mambaonline is a source we should use.

What I would do if similar edits start again (as in IP:s adding crap like "regrettably") is go to WP:RFPP and make a report asking for protection (WP:PROTECT), stating something like "Significant IP-disruption in BLP." Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This now escalated to the IP saying they are the subject and making legal threats leading to a block Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Danny Watts, COI, and Legal Threats Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Motorcycle Action Group

Motorcycle Action Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Would someone please have a look at Motorcycle Action Group, where a "Controversies" section about living people was added, based on an unreliable source (a website created by one of the involved parties). M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the Controversies section, warned the editor, and left a message on Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Warren Beatty

This BLP includes a "Personal life" section that seems to claim that he has had sex with over 130 notable women. I looked at the claim about one of them, Hillary Clinton and found the sourcing very poor, so I removed it. I have no objection to discussing well-referenced long term relationships, but Wikipedia should not host speculation about every rumored sexual encounter that a "handsome celebrity" may have engaged in, over the course of the last six decades. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I checked several more and the references given didn't support the entry in any way at all. For the moment I have just nuked the whole list as unencyclopedic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sven Liebich

Could this be summarily deleted? The article is entirely negative in tone and claims a lot more than is supported by sources, which may or may not be reliable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Kia Labeija

Kia LaBeija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)

Death of Gabby Petito

The article includes the names of all the eye-witnesses, however WP:BLPNAME seems pretty clear that extreme caution should be used when adding the names of third parties who are not public figures to articles. The witnesses themselvse are not relevant to the case, only what they saw. I've mentioned this issue on the talk page.

• Talk:Death_of_Gabby_Petito#Names_and_irrelevant_details

Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your reading of BLPNAME is correct, and it's highly likely that most/all of those names should be removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the witness names. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanx all! - FlightTime (open channel) 02:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The witness names have been subsequently added back to the article. Those adding it have not stated their reasoning to the talk page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

B. Wongar

In the current version of this BLP we have persistent and irrational tendency to disparage the subject based on attempts of some (T. Keneally, J. Hanrahan) to debunk Wongar's work as a literary hoax. There are numerous proofs, implicit or explicit, that this tendency has lost currency, no matter how many times was repeated. Questions of Wongar's authorial identity and legitimacy came from people who are not Australian Aborigines and are an insignificant minority in the world of literary criticism. WP:BLPBALANCE is clear: "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."

Request 1. Remove Cultural appropriation category and this sentence: The revelation that Wongar was a Serbian immigrant, as well as inconsistencies in his life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary hoax and cultural appropriation. from the lead paragraph. If wanting more support for this request please, read Ann McGrath: In Search of the Never-Never: Mickey Dewar: Champion of History Across Many Genres, ANU Press, Apr 9, 2019 page 214 and after. Needles to say, keeping this category and the quoted sentence in the lead, we have an attack page which is forbidden by BLP policy.

The current text is nonsensically tag bombed by and tags. All text is fully covered by references, and I even added the new ones in order to strenghten the content. But each time I added the new references and warned about nonsense, my text changes get reverted without any justification on the talk page. Not a single was ever justified on the talk page.

Request 2. Prevent tag bombing .

One user claims: The article has multiple issues. One of them The biography needs to be cleaned up to indicate that the entire backstory is based on (some of) his own claims. Nothing like this. His own claims are entered only if already being accepted by biographers and literary critics.

Request 3. Remove the The article has multiple issues tag and ignore the request above given.--Bocin kolega (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)--

The strength of reliable sources publishing the viewpoint like the Guardian and peer-reviewed academic journals determine its WP:WEIGHT. The current text that have the citation needed tags are in danger of being removed and should be supported by reliable sources. Perhaps Xxanthippe and David Eppstein can explain the issues with the references you added since they reverted you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wongar article is one of the obsessions of a recurring sockpuppet / abusive editor, who also pushes Serbian nationalist topics, hypes up the achievements of certain mathematicians, has some interest in Catholic-church sexual abuse scandals that I'm not entirely sure of the details of, and repeatedly attacks certain Wikipedia editors who have disagreed with these edits. For this reason, any change to the Wongar article, especially one denying the Wongar hoax story and trying to remove the well-documented published reliable sources claiming it to be a hoax, is likely to come under great scrutiny. In any case, the cleanup banners are appropriate (the article has many "citation needed" tags), the claims here that those tags are unnecessary are false, the removal of the well-sourced hoax claims would be inappropriate and would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:INUNIVERSE, and in general the requested edits are both problematic and consistent with the past problematic sockpuppetry on this article. To be blunt, BLP is not about the whitewashing of well-sourced negative information about a living person merely because it is negative. The McGrath source mentioned above ([2]) does not do anything to contradict this information; it merely suggests that some literary critics view it as old news. The sentence about "hoax and literary appropriation" in the lead is reference-bombed with four published reliable sources, providing exactly this information and using the exact words "hoax" and "literary appropriation", in part because of the persistent sockpuppet-led attempts to remove this information. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A reader of the sources in the BIO will have noted that long ago Wongar was outed as a literary hoaxer and a misappropriator of the cultures of indigenous Australian peoples.[3][4][5] "Facts" about Wongar that have been regurgitated by credulous journalists after those "facts" have been fed to them by the hoaxer himself cannot be relied upon until they are verified by sources totally independent of Wongar. Much of the BIO is based on such unreliable sources. I am tempted to call for a topic ban, but realize that it would probably result, as it did before, with a barrage of WP:spa socks and redlinks. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC).

All I see here, in the last two comments, is a barrage of poorly veiled personal attacks. I never ever edited anything related to mathematics or to Catholic church. But let us pretend that such comments would be sanitized or even removed later.

Now let us dig deeper in "the well-documented published reliable sources claiming it to be a hoax" - as it was claimed by Mr Eppstein. I have this sentence The revelation that Wongar was a Serbian immigrant, as well as inconsistencies in his life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary hoax and cultural appropriation.[5][6][7][8] on my mind.

Reference [5] mentions B Wongar's name only inside two sentences and these two sentences are far from being well-documented sources of anything since these sentences are just a bad opinion (full of nonsensical phrases) about Wongar. One of them is: Fake authors, such as Darville/Demidenko, Koomatrie/Carmen and Wongar/Bozic, appear to demonstrate a cynical but also unconsciously keen perception of both the nature of literature as fakery and of the literary, in contemporary Australia, as ethical commodity.

References [6] and [7] are about T. Kenneally's personal opinion about B. Wongar reduced in [7] to "that while Wongar's work is celebrated in Europe and that he may one day be regarded as 'a highly significant Australian writer', 'his deception has soured his reception in the English-speaking world'." B. Wongar's books were translated into 13 languages (so not celebrated just in Europe, but worldwide) and the English speaking world awarded Wongar many times. Read Wongar's awards and honors to see why you are wrong mr Kenneally. In the John Mandelberg's documentary "A double life: the life & times of B. Wongar", Kenneally was more cautious: did not accuse B. Wongar of anything (or Mandelberg did no include it in the documentary, if any).

The most surprising thing is reference [8]:Notes on the postmodernity of fake(?) Aboriginal literature. This reference does not support the claim it was added to. Rather, it reject the idea about Wongar's literary hoax/cultural appropriation by saying: "The impossible struggles over authenticity of authors and artists like Mudrooroo and Sally Morgan are a perfect (if ironic) fit with the postmodern stress on inauthenticity, or a commodified and globalized capitalist culture in which everything is a copy, nothing is original (let alone Aboriginal)."

About the McGrath source - Mr Eppstein has strong opinion about Wongar based on not reading the source he referred to. Under the title "Poor Buggler All Of Us" and inside this source, we read: "Latterly the debunking of Wongar as a literary hoax has lost currency²⁰, although perhaps not entirely²¹."

Mr Eppstein continued with his bad habit of having strong opinion about something he did not read. See, for example his Two not-yet-used recent sources where he claims The first one appears to be about the question of Wongar's identity, Not at all Mr Eppstein. Try, before making your opinion, to read fully the reference you mentioned there.

Xxanthippe wrote: "A reader of the sources in the BIO will have noted that long ago Wongar was outed as a literary hoaxer and a misappropriator of the cultures of indigenous Australian peoples." Hm. Xxanthippe, I advise you to read what the four Nobel laureates J.P. Sartre, H. Böll, S. Beckett, and P. Handke wrote about B. Wongar's works and try to understand why these four big men supported B. Wongar. Try to explain to yourself why B. Wongar, the "hoaxer" and "appropriator", held the Writer-in-residence post at the Aboriginal Research Centre at Monash University in the late 1980s. Then answer this question: Which of the sources supporting this biography are unreliable and why?

Bottom line: All my three requests are valid since the comments of Xxanthippe and Mr Eppstein are personal opinions at their best.--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, I do know we keep getting lots of nonsense BLPN threads about B. Wongar on BLPN from random "new" editors. I'll say something similar to what I said to another area where something similar kept happening. It's unlikely anything will come from these threads. I think many regulars here are just taking to ignoring them.

If there really is something we can do to improve the article, what we need is an editor willing to stick it out and not a continually bunch of "new" editors. By this stage, given the disruption, if that is you, you need to establish a reputation outside controversial areas, and I don't mean just a few edits. If in a few years time when you have such a reputation you still see problems, and come back then talk about them much better aware of our policies and guidelines, then perhaps something might happen.

Alternatively we'll likely look at the concerns of any editor with a declared COI although it might still be the case there's nothing we can do.

I would note that Jean-Paul Sartre, Samuel Beckett and Heinrich Böll all passed away prior to 1990 and the late 1980s is also the late 1980s. While it seems there was already some controversy over Wongar by then, suffice to say it was a very different time especially for stuff like the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as but to an even greater extent anything related to cultural appropriation. E.g. it was before Mabo v Queensland (No 2) or Bringing Them Home. In other words, if your focus is on stuff so long ago, editors may wonder if the reason is because you know reception of Wongar has significantly changed since the 1980s.

Peter Handke is still alive, but not without extreme controversy themselves. While this is mostly about a different thing from what lead to Wongar to be controversial, at least on Wikipedia there seems to be some correlation between support for extreme Serb nationalism and Wongar. (Alternatively it's just one editor.) In other words, Handke doesn't lead much credence to the suggest Wongar's work isn't extremely controversial either. BTW, as a further sign of how long ago the 1980s is, the stuff which ultimately resulted in Handke being controversial largely happened after 1980s.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne As earlier, I'll ignore all that nonsensical rant you dropped here. Still, your "knowledge" about the four Nobel laureates support deserves some response since you are of the same "regulars" as the three responders above: people reading nothing, knowing nothing but with strong opinion about "rights" and "wrongs".

J.P. Sartre, Wongar's friend, helped Wongar to publish the French translation of Track to Bralgu (1977) and Babaru (1982) in Les Temps Modernes, Paris. S. de Beauvoir, Sartre's life partner, wrote the foreword for Walg for English and Serbian editions of this novel.

In 1981 Wongar sent the manuscript of his Walg to H. Böll. Böll's wife Annemarie translated the Walg into German and Heinrich wrote foreword for the German edition of this novel in 1983 (Lamuv Verlag, Germany).

Per S. Beckett recommendation, Babaru was published by University of Illinois Press, in 1982. The same book was rejected on political grounds by every Australian publisher; Babaru won the American Library Association Award after being originally published. S. Beckett's recommendations finally broke "political unacceptability" hurdle in Australia and Macmillan Australia published "nuclear trilogy" (Walg, Karan, Gabo Djara).

Now you are trying to disqualify P. Handke's literature ("Handke doesn't lead much credence to the suggest Wongar's work isn't extremely controversial"), don't you? By putting Handke's literary greatness in a dirty envelope of politics?! In his foreword to the German edition of Babaru (Edition Esele, Germany, 1987) Handke completely ignored Wongar's "literary hoax" and "cultural appropriation" as it was "explained" by T. Kenneally and likes (just two of them). By no means Kenneally is a voice/representative of Aboriginal culture. Australian Aborigines accepted Wongar as a true representative of their culture: Wongar was a writer-in-residence at the Aboriginal Research Centre at Monash University in the late 1980s.

Not only these four Nobel laureates ignored any idea of "literary hoax" and "cultural appropriation". We have at least three dozens essays and appraisals/reviews of Wongar's literature ignoring or explicitly rejecting (M. Dolan, S. Gunew, T. Beebee, L. Dobrez, among many) T. Kenneally's disqualifications of Wongar. In his Australia and worlwide, Wongar won the most prestigious literary awards.

Are you going further advertise Kenneally's nonsense about Wongar? BLP policy is clear: "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."

• Message to case handling admin. Please, dignify this discussion by forbidding uncivilty and personal attacks. Force people to demonstrate knowledge, not personal views and distortion of the facts.--Bocin kolega (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As an outsider to this whole topic, but one who's been patrolling the BLP page for a long time, I thought for a moment that I would take a look at this with fresh eyes. I mean, what other reason could possibly exist for you to bring it here, right? Unfortunately, I read only a single paragraph of your most recent comment and was immediately turned off. "Nope. Don't want to get involved with this person." I will leave this advice, though. You won't get any support by being insulting, condescending, and dismissive. I hope that helps, and I wish you luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bocin kolega. Do you have any connection with Wongar that should be declared under WP:COI policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe Please, avoid further personal attacks! --Bocin kolega (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that this a personal attack. I am happy to declare for myself that I have no connection with Wongar. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

It's not. I think people sometimes get confused, or occasionally may have disorders that cause them to take any form of criticism --real or perceived-- very personally, but in most cases I find it's simply a passive-aggressive deflection tactic. A real personal attack would be more along the lines of, "Jo Schmo is an ugly, disgusting pig who beats his dog." It's literally attacking the person, and is also a form of deflection. Either way, aggressive-aggressive or passive-aggressive, it's a way to distract from the point. ("Look, over there!") Asking pertinent questions, pointing out flaws in logic, giving opinions, or even giving advice and constructive criticism, these things are not personal attacks, and in fact are quite necessary in the course of any productive discussion. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Bocin kolega, if you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, then you need to declare it or stop trying to make any changes to that article. Repeatedly attempting to attack others and misrepresent their comments is not appropriate either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not attacking nor misinterpreting anyone. The others do it. No conflict of interest on my side at all. --Bocin kolega (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@User: Bocin kolega I find your answer to be equivocal. Do you have any connection with B. Wongar Yes or No? If you do, other editors, not you, will judge if it gives rise to a WP:COI. Your attitude in this[6] edit inspires little confidence in your willingness to adhere to the norms of collaborative Wikipedia editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC).

I note that you started editing in April 2019, right in the middle of the period when a vast battalion of sockpuppets, that edited in fields similar to those that you edit in was being closed down. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bocin kolega: There's no such thing as a "case handling admin" at BLP or pretty much anywhere. (There are clerks at arbcom.)

As for the rest, you seem to be re-affirming my point. You're using 3 people who died prior to 1990, and therefore have not had a chance to re-assess their position. The fact you continue to focus on these 3 people supports the idea that you know Wongar's work has been extremely controversial and therefore are clutching at straws choosing people who never had the opportunity to re-assess their views in light of new evidence etc. Note this doesn't mean any of them would have come to a different conclusion now in 2021, simply that we can never know. And given that there are plenty of living Nobel literature laurates and I suspect also some who died less than 10 years, the only reason to focus on these 3 who died so long ago, would seem to be because you cannot find anyone else. Frankly, I personally find it distasteful you're try to taint the legacy of these 3 Nobel laureates in such a manner so won't engage further. (As for Handke, the simple fact is that his views on a number of related things don't represent the mainstream view. This in itself suggests caution, but when added with the apparent overlap between his controversial views and those that tend to support Wognar on Wikipedia, this compounds the concern his views on Wongar are far outside the mainstream.)

I'd note that in addition, you've criticised David Eppstein for providing a source on the talk page without properly reading it. Yet if we look at the discussion all that happened is David Eppstein listed two sources they came across which they felt could be used to improve the article. Whether due to time or lack of interest or whatever, they didn't do so themselves. They made clear in their comment they had only read the abstract. This is entirely reasonable and perfectly normal and often useful since not all editors are as good at finding sources especially about somewhat obscure figures. If they are wrong about what the source contains as you allege, it doesn't matter much. Any editor who uses the source be that David Eppstein or someone else will read the source and not just the abstract. A few years from now, maybe that could even be useyou.

Finally as with others, I'm happy to declare I have no COI. Frankly I'd never heard of Wongar before one of the many "new" accounts brought it to BLPN. Asking someone to declare whether they have a COI is not a personal attack, the fact you claim it is further supports the view you should be ignored IMO. (Continuing to insist someone has a COI without much evidence when they've declared they have no COI may be, but that wasn't what happened here.)

Since you don't have a COI as you've finally declared, I stand by my view that if you want someone to look into this, you need to establish that you are not one of the large number of socks we keep getting by sticking around constructively contributing elsewhere. Since we're sick of wasting time on socks who want changes that are never going to happen. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive noting that while of the identified ones, I think only the master ever edited B. Wongar but plenty of IPs with similar editing patterns did.) One thing which maybe wasn't clear earlier, once you have sufficient experience you may not need a BLPN thread to improve the article, since you could use that experience to improve it without needing much help from others, unlike your failed recent attempts. (You will quickly learn for example that the views of people who died so long ago on something that remains a significant issue tend to count for very little and so will probably yourself be embarrassed by the examples you used.) Definitely I've come across old comments of mine which I now recognise reflect a lack of understanding of our policies or guidelines or whatever.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Isabel Webster‎

Isabel Webster‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) succession of IPs that think a third party saying "happy birthday" on Twitter confirms a birth date. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misbah_El-Ahdab

Misbah_El-Ahdab or link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misbah_El-Ahdab This wiki page contains fake news and false information. The two sections of Drug involvement and Lebanese protests are fake news. The ministry of interior of Lebanon saw these two fake articles and denied them by declaring that these are fake news. Source: https://www.lebanese-forces.com/2012/07/30/229714/

Please can you remove these two sections. Thank you.

Ron Gant

1. I made the following edit to the BLP article for Ron Gant.

   In January 1994, Gant was sued in Victoria County, Texas and accused of conspiring to encourage, aid and assist a friend in having sex with two teenage girls.

2. User:BilCat reverted my edit because, he argues, "adding notice of a suit like this with no follow-up on what happened to the suit violates WP:BLP."
3. I undid his revert and pointed out that "There is nothing here that violates WP:BLP unless you can point me to a specific provision or a consensus buried in a talk page somewhere that I'm overlooking. I would certainly add further information about what became of that lawsuit if I were able to find it but that information is in no way required."
4. He again reverted my edit and said that the edit "tarnishes his name needlessly" and violates "the spirit of WP:BLP."

I was just hoping a third party could weigh in on this. I can't see any reason that it should be removed from his article. It's certainly notable in that it was widely reported in newspapers at the time and it was implied in many of those articles that it contributed to his eventually being let go by the Atlanta Braves. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the "spirit of" BLP argument and don't think something so vague and abstract should be a factor here. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Seems a grand jury declining to indict would be equally, if not more relevant. [[7]]

BLP leans heavily to protecting the subject of the article so a one-day story with little follow up doesn't come across as WP:DUE Slywriter (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Slywriter here: this is not a BLP violation, as it is well-sourced, but in the grand sweep of time, it feels undue, especially given the NYT article. Then again, I am often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't been able to find the NYT article in my own research. I think if I add that bit of information then it will resolve the edit war. I won't be accused of "tarnishing his name needlessly." --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, this would not be my preferred outcome--in essence you would be enlarging upon an undue section. I think it should be removed, but consensus may well go against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid. Accused and not indicted seems pretty WP:UNDUE, unless there was a huge amount of coverage to establish the importance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that this seems undue, especially given that the sources are all from the same month period and there does not seem to be any coverage of this accusation since. I think it also may be a BLP violation based on the sourcing given that there was no indictment and the reporting is only on a lawsuit that was filed without reporting on its resolution. Starting a conversation on the article's talk page before BLPN probably would have been helpful, but at least for now I have removed the contentious content until some sort of consensus is reached per WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, there was wide coverage at the time given both AP and UPI coverage[8], being syndicated to thousands of newspapers. A quick check on newspaper.com shows 485 articles covering this in 1994. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple articles reported that the lawsuit was dropped in April 1994 by the accuser due to stress. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there was a lot of coverage, but of a flash-in-the-pan nature; the reliable sources seem to have pretty quickly concluded that there was no "there" there. As such, it still seems undue to me, but if consensus is against me, so be it! Happy Saturday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Which just means 485 papers picked up a syndictated story. That's not wide, nor is it sustained coverage. That's just the newspaper model of 1994. Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand that's how the majority of newspaper coverage works and still works. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand quite well that syndication means ONE story gets printed in multiple places. It also makes it ONE source, not 485. It also doesn't make the coverage sustained or widespread as it's a ONE day story. No newspaper appears to have done their own follow up nor did the AP feel the need to keep its syndicated customers informed on the topic. And let's keep it about the topic, thanks. Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple articles across dates published in multiple newspapers. When the lawsuit is filed, articles appeared Jan 29. When the grand jury reviewed and declined to indict, articles appeared February 9. When the lawsuit was dropped, articles appeared April 14. You can run that check on newspapers.com Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So three stories with none of them appearing to justify that this is due or appropriate for a BLP. No biographer, no retrospect on his career has been shown to cover this matter. An accusation was made, it was not found to be criminal and was ultimately not litigated civilly. Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, please keep moving those goalposts. What biographies are out there of Ron Gant? What career retrospect would cover non-career stuff? WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied. As for DUE, this is no less due than his bar fight, fatal car accident, mortgage fraud sting operation from his personal life section in terms of the amount of coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are all verified incidents that happened, though I think the bar fight is gossip. This is single allegation that had no lasting impact on his career or how media covered him. No notoriety, no fame, no sustained coverage, not even a mention found upon his retirement. That's not moving the goalposts, it is exactly what is required of an encyclopedia covering a living person. Slywriter (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What part of WP:DUE requires lasting impact, notoriety, fame, or sustained coverage? None of those other incidents would seem to meet that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for invoking WP:DUE, though that is still the best description for me, but this claim certainly received coverage. Given the policy at WP:BLP of avoiding tabloid-style stories and exercising editorial judgment, I still think this should stay out. None of us know what actually happened here, but we have in essence, is two sets of stories: "claim" and "claim went away." If you can can form a consensus to override me, I won't complain, but I remain a no. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is part of the content policies related to NPOV and DUE, and it seems pretty common sense that as information becomes more contentious, the importance of the lasting impact and sustained coverage becomes more important. If only one source reported on some non-controversial activity a person did as a child, then that has a much lower bar to be DUE. However, for a serious criminal accusations, if the only sources that discuss it are news reports that appeared only briefly right when it was a news topic, then that seems to be exactly one of the types of situations where we should not simply be reporting unsubstantiated allegations that merely made the news. If this lawsuit has never been mentioned again in the many news stories about the article subject since, then I don't see how it is relevant to the article or DUE. The other examples given by Morbidthoughts are all based on actual verified incidents, and no one disputes that the fight, car accident, or sting operation occurred. I really don't see how they are comparable situations at all. The only one of those that even concerns an allegation related to Gant is whether he was responsible for the other person's injuries in the fight, but that case both went to trial and was also reported on 15 years after it happened, and so it is far more relevant and DUE than a lawsuit that was filed and withdrawn without any actual resolution on the merits and a grand jury that never led to an indictment. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

BLP protection for this type of situation is explicit in WP:SUSPECT. I do not read any requirement in WP:DUE nor WP:NPOV nor WP:NOTNEWS that the underlying incident be verified. The lawsuit did happen just like his breaking his leg right afterward and being let go by his team. News articles about his leg break mentioned the lawsuit because they thought it was pertinent to do so. WP:WEIGHT is an issue of weighing the coverage while NPOV requires it be stated neutrally; not hiding WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:WEDONTNEEDIT behind pseudo-BLP inferences. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, breaking his leg appears to have been a significant part of his life and career that has been covered in many articles about him since it happened. That situation also did not involve any allegations against Gant, especially not allegations of serious criminal conduct, and so similar to the other examples you gave above, I am not sure how it is relevant to the situation under discussion. Can you find any reliable sources in the past 20 years discussing the sexual assault allegations against Gant? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the significance of the leg break. Read the original complaint on the context of the lawsuit with the leg break. Again you're inferring a time significance test that does not exist in any of the policies you cited under the guise of common sense. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Donald C. Bolduc

Hello. Please note this page is being updated and any edits to it is <in use> Please refrain from removing the text or updated as was are trying to put in citations but cannot when you revert. If you have a <diff> then contact me directly but this information is coming directly from General Bolduc. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxslicer (talk • contribs)

• We have evidence that this person is being paid to edit Don C Bolduc. Block him. Thank you, Pyramids09 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Aside from any paid editing concerns, I understand what you're saying and why you are saying it, but you're running up against a pretty hard and fast rule on Wikipedia, encapsulated in WP:BLP. Namely that everything that is likely to be challenged must be cited. If someone comes across such a thing in an article about a person, and there's no citation, they would be doing the "right thing" to remove it. I would humbly suggest that for any contentious claims, you add the cite at the same time you add the claim. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Dumuzid Look at his edit summaries, there is some evidence there. Thank you.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  So, I am about the farthest thing from an admin, but having had a look, I understand the concern. I am not sure paid editing is necessarily the issue, but there is a clear and openly declared WP:COIN. Bronxslicer, at this point I think it is incumbent upon you to declare exactly what your relationship is to the article's subject and/or any of his political campaigns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Pyramids09, if the unsourced promotional edits continue, the conflict of interest noticeboard may be a better place to get the attention of interested admins. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Stel Pavlou

Raising issue of notability and possible the subject of the article WP:BLPEDIT editing it, which is getting close to an edit war re: templates for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP. This user(s) already has claimed that the templates equal harassment and vandalism, which come from IP addresses in subject's city. IMHO, the guy has so little written about him in detail to achieve notability.

He wrote a few books (nothing special there), wrote the screenplay for an unexceptional movie, and recently hosted a pseudoarchaeology show on Discovery Channel. There are just a few third-party sources covering these activities, but none provide comprehensive coverage for WP:BIO or get passed the threshold for WP:N. I added the a recent piece from The Daily Beast, which covered a but of the criticism of this pseudoarchaeology show got on Twitter and a "Twitter Storm" that erupted when subject and his wife insulted professional archaeologists. Even with this WP:1EVENT, this guy does not achieve notability. More experienced eyes are welcome. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I checked the IP address of user. That city has a high pop. and other famous peeps. User could be Dog the Bounty Hunter for all we know! He lives there too. Your edits do appear to verge on vandalism, as most of your edits are aimed at this dude, his work, his show, his hosting partner. Looks like you have a personal grudge. User:Sj you created this entry and now the subject has his own TV show on Discovery. That good enough for you? I recommend Qt.petrovich be banned for antisocial activity. Madvark talk

A ban for anti-social activity? That seems a bit much for someone inquiring about notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Look at the post activity. Dude came here for one reason and is on a tear. Not cool. Madvark talk

If you're going to post under a username, please create an account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Have account. Got logged out.Madvark talk

And instead of typing out a signature you can use ~~~~ at the end of your message to sign the post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is now an AfD for this page: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Stel_Pavlou_(2nd_nomination). Since this also deals with WP:FRINGE issues, I would ping @Roxy the dog and @Alexbrn. @jps may also have a fair opinion. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 11:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and I am sorry for possibly having inappropriately done this. I was informing editors who may be interested in the topic, which I thought was appropriate. Qt.petrovich (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, better to use noticeboards rather than pinging specific users about discussions where consensus is trying to be reached. However, I am not altogether enthusiastic about the WP:SPA active in this thread. It's making it difficult to actually do the job of evaluating sources. Back to the subject of this thread, you have identified some good sources here, so WP:GNG may have been reached. jps (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Melanie Rawn

The link to Melanie Rawn's official website is no longer correct. Clicking the official website link (http://www.melanierawn.com/) listed in the External Links section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Rawn now takes you to a gambling website. Clearly the author has allowed the domain name to lapse. Only viable solution: remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.162.43 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. Qt.petrovich (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Should have been .org. Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, but honestly, it wasn't worth the effort. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 11:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Katherine Pooley

Raising issue of notability and possible the subject of the article WP:BLPEDIT editing it. The sources cited in the article do not meet the criteria to merit notability of this living person.

William Patterson Dunlop

There is a discussion on the talk page. My position is that we should not be saying this person is dead without a reliable secondary source stating this information. I am also concerned that none of the biographical information can be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Most of the information there was posted by anonymous IPs who are ostensibly family and friends making the article shortly after the actor's death. What reliable secondary source that can be found amount to a list of films and tv shows the actor has worked in.

User:4meter4 is of the opinion that we should not be saying he is alive either, which I agree with. In fact if we cannot find such sources we should not have an article at all. The user also says that we should apply WP:COMMONSENSE and accept what family and friends are posting here, and that we should accept the primary source findagrave.com as a reference. The findagrave entry was written by a volunteer to the website and includes text from an earlier version of our article.

The article is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Patterson Dunlop

We are an am impasse and would like further community opinions on the matter. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Correction, I may be wrong about findagrave using Wikipedia text. It may have been the other way around. I still don't believe it qualifies as a reliable secondary source as it was written by a volunteer to the site much in the same way the Wikipedia operates. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Maher (writer)

Patrick Maher (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are several problems with the article.The article has full of false/misguided information about books that he wrote and published. Which is damaging his impression and he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. Most of the citations were promotional articles and now only 2-3 of the links are live, all others are deleted. And there is no such notability.I would like to delete the article on behalf of the person. Is that possible? I have delclared COI. Simplewikipedian (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I nominated the article for AfD. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war]. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not neutrally worded. I think you need to lay of accusations of fandom, implying bias.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the part that needs to be looked at is the venue shopping for this dispute. Talk:Julian_Assange#Notification:_Discussion_at_BLP_noticeboard;_NPOV_noticeboard;_RS_noticeboard shows that this dispute has been put on a handful of locations for simultaneous discussion and this appears to be WP:TE of the ijustdontlikeit kind. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like SPECIFICO is asking for participation in the RfC not simultaneous discussion in multiple venues. Neutral notification at appropriate locations is not generally considered venue shopping although I'm not sure if there was need for so many. However I do agree with Slatersteven that the notification clearly wasn't neutral which is clearly an issue as it violates WP:CANVASSING. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please. Canvassing relates to soliciting editors with a POV on the question, not to my having stated the circumstance that the talk page is a mess and needs help. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE what you posted here should be neutrally worded. It’s not. It would have been had you omitted “a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media.” Strike it. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Parm Sandhu

Parm Sandhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a biography of a living person. It makes a number of claims about that person. Those claims are referenced, but the claims are not supported by the references given. For example there is mention of an award, and the reference leads to https://www.awaawards.com/, but that web page does not mention the individual that the article is about.

There is also mention of a medal - which is supported by a news article that does not mention medals.

There is mention of an audience with the Queen - which again is supported by a news article that does not mention an audience with the Queen.

The information above was removed in line with the BLP policy - "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;" However that edit was classed as vandalism and has been restored, in voilation of BLP policy "Restoring deleted content". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.13.110 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the article. As you said, it does not appear any of the content you removed was supported by the cited sources. I do not know why Pachu Kannan restored the material, but I have reverted their edit until adequate sourcing can be provided. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Katie Price

Katie Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an intractable dispute going on at the Katie Price article. WP:NOTNEWS states: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.. WP:BLPGOSSIP states: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. and WP:PROPORTION states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Two attempts to trim the personal life section of this BLP to remove laundry lists of gossip and overcoverage of her personal relationships has been stale reverted. The first time by @Escape Orbit: and the second time by User:Okay,okayhshshs, who was not involved in discussions previously and is a borderline SPA. Attempts to discuss on the talk page [9], ended last week with no further response to me, so today, I began trimming the material in question. @Martinevans123: began a new discussion, decrying the changes [10] The policies I've cited are pretty clear and loading a BLP down with all of this trivial tabloid gossip seems at best a violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. Discussion has gone nowhere, so here I am, looking for help. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In terms of removal, the easiest way to identify gossip is to look at quality of the sources and remove anything that is reported by questionable sources. Since this person is a celebrity, even high quality sources may report on the most mundane thing but determining correct proportion or appropriateness is best done through discussion rather than unilaterally. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, Daily Record (Scotland) is a tabloid and should be excised and The Argus (Brighton) looks somewhat questionable due to the headlines on its front page.[11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram down in massive outage"? Yeah, that looks just totally made up. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No, surely it’s the blatant sensationalism of “Slow traffic reported along Old Shoreham Road after collision near Shell station” for which The Brighton Argus is so notorious. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

omg. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Headlines like "Two boys arrested after police investigate burglaries at children's play centre", "Council leader rubbishes claim that an extra bin collection was ordered to his area ahead of strike", "Man hit in the head with hammer during aggravated burglary" do not inspire the greatest of confidence in the weight of its reports beyond ho hum WP:NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the catalogue of driving issues (whch are all impeccably sourced, and for which she may well end up in prison) whilst removing the extraneous issues. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The driving issues seem relevant to some extent, but the amount of detail in the article seemed pretty excessive. I've tried to trim them down some to remove extraneous details [12]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The itemized laundry list of incidents and penalties are excessive and the initial 2010 incidents are sourced to the Daily Record (ref=paparazzi) and Argus. I would not call those impeccable sourcing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The Evening Standard citation link (an April 2012 article) does not seem to verify or align with the stated Dec 2010 ban? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, that article is from December 2010 [13]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I delved into the archives after posting and updated the link so that there would be no confusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Summoned here by a surprise ping. Accused of "playing games". Ooh, that's a lot of bold text above. Why should the "dispute" be "intractable"? The article may need trimming. It's the unilateral onslaught method to which I'm objecting. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Summoned here by stalking Martinevans123's contributions. I think Black Kite's version is probably the one to go for, it's compliant with BLP, balances the opposed views here and is hopefully a suitable enough compromise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Charles W. Mills

I and Caribbean Philosopher disagree about the appropriate nationality to use (per WP:CONTEXTBIO) in the lede of Charles W. Mills, a biography of a recently deceased philosopher. Any input is appreciated. Perhaps the best option is simply to omit nationality entirely as sources including this NYT obituary studiously avoid describing him as American, Jamaican, or Caribbean. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be whatever his citizenships are. Did he have Jamaican citizenship through his parents? Did he lose his UK (and possibly Jamaica) citizenship upon becoming an American? The lead can expound on his Caribbean background later if it is important to notability as a philosopher. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

He put his Jamaican citizenship in the past tense in 2014, "I was a citizen of a small Third World country, Jamaica...", while he described himself as an American citizen in 2020.[14] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doi:10.4324/9781315857299-20 - hadn't seen that. Based on my WP:OR from British nationality law and Jamaican nationality law, he would be a British citizen by lex soli and a Jamaican citizen by lex sanguinis. He stated in an interview that he acquired US citizenship. So he would have held three citizenships unless he renounced one or more or they ended by operation of law. But, of course, none of this can go in the article without statements in sources. As far as the sources go, following WP:ABOUTSELF, he called himself "Caribbean-American": see this page (page 172), in an essay republished from JSTOR 26770019. And in the interview I mentioned below, he explicitly called himself an American citizen. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of Contextbio is to de-emphasize ethnicity or background in favour of actual legal status (nationality or citizenship). It would be nice to learn when he became an American citizen so that we could put it in its proper context later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If his nationality/nationalities are not an important part of his identity or are more complicated than a one-word country designation(s) in the lead would suggest, then I think it may be appropriate to leave his nationality out of the lead. The additional context in the personal life section seems more helpful to readers. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is my view as well. I think Caribbean-American, perhaps with accompanying {{efn}}, is the best fit, since it (1) was Mills's self-description, at least in one publication; and (2) accounts for his childhood in Jamaica and most of his adult life in the US (minus an interlude in Toronto for his PhD). But the matter is complex enough that it's probably just best to leave out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Sophie Labelle

Sophie Labelle is a Canadian cartoonist that, in February 2021, was "exposed" for doing diaper fetish furry art. She has "admitted" doing so, proudly in fact, and, in a "Facebook post", has described the drama as a "coming out again at 32". I wanted to add this information to her page, but the editors there are too biased (there's no other way for me to put it) and won't allow any mention of this event there, despite none of the claims I wrote being even remottely disputed (therefore, not controversial), and despite she stating that this event is very important to her life. How is it that a "coming out again at 32" of Labelle is not even mentioned in her article? This event has already been refered to by a "secondary source", even though most of the information about it is in the form of "primary sources" and "unreliable secondary sources" (though I didn't reference those). I ask for any independent editor to read my edits in her article, read the "talk page" and, hopefully, solve this issue. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)