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.

Fani Willis

Allegations that district attorney of Fulton County Georgia Fani Willis had hired a boyfriend as special prosecutor have been widely reported in reliable sources.

CBS News article: A Fulton County commissioner says he is now pursuing an investigation ... he would pursue a “full investigation”

ABC News source: would be "pursuing as full of an investigation as is permitted by Fulton County government."

Willis "sought to quash" the subpoena and accused Wade's wife.

PBS Newshour article: Fani Willis is accusing the estranged wife of a special prosecutor she hired of trying to obstruct her criminal election-interference case ... seeking to quash the subpoena.

Politico article: Willis moved to quash the subpoena

Certain editors would like to keep this information out of the article on BLP grounds. THe reason provide is Willis hasnt responded and we can only consider inclusion after an investigation is complete. The reasoning seems questionable. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The reason is because the editors are looking to include content that insinuates wrongdoing on the part of Willis, a highly visible figure who is trying one of Donald Trump's criminal cases (see 2020 Georgia election investigation and Georgia election racketeering prosecution for more on that). I will note that there is a section titled "Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Fani Willis" at the racketeering prosecution article that I do not object to, as it is not a BLP and is the appropriate article for discussing pretrial motions.

This is one edit I've reverted. This is based on no concrete evidence that has been presented as of yet, but insinuations from the court filings of one of Trump's codefendants. The judge has yet to hear arguments relating to this. In addition to WP:BLPGOSSIP, there are WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS grounds to keep this out, at least for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

While I may not specifically endorse the edits you reverted, I would note that what comes to including basic facts per PUBLICFIGURE, your unsubstantiated references BLPGOSSIP and NOTNEWS have zero relevance. Please study the policies you cite and you shall see it yourself. Your claim that there is"no concrete evidence" is also irrelevant. What matters is that there are widely reported allegations and there is no indication that the allegations can be promptly dismissed as false. RECENTISM is an essay that is also cited BLPSTYLE, and may helpful in determining due weight, but the essay cannot subvert another policy, specifically PUBLICFIGURE. Politrukki (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I could throw around more letters like WP:VNOT. You do so quite a bit. You need to study BLP protections more generally. Court filings are not "evidence" until a judge rules on them. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Since my edit is being referenced and again being misrepresented here, I'll chip in my take.

You have claimed repeatedly that this is only based on court filings, which is incorrect. RS have done their own research and reporting on this. RS report on Wade's lack of prosecutorial experience while being assigned the lead role by Willis in this case - per Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, based on their analysis of Wade's career and typical procedure. They note the >$650,000 he has been paid, larger than Willi's own salary, doing a job that normally is done by civil servants, per aforementioned WaPo article based on county records. They report on the investigatory measures taken by Fulton County audit chair sourced from him per NBC News. And some more up to date reporting includes NYT reporting backing up a relationship between Willis and Wade based on an independent witness. I'd also like to present that you seemingly? agree with me that my edit's presentation of content matches RS ("taking the words directly from sources"), after previously claiming bias.

Does your standard on "considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide" (mentioned below) apply for any of the people mentioned in the Fani Willis article's coverage of her electoral indictments, who are as of yet, unconvicted or sometimes not even indicted? Including Burt Jones, who a judge has explicitly blocked Willis from prosecuting? We have RS coverage of both Willis and Jones, including their own reporting, their own evidence gathering, their own analysis, etc. It makes perfect sense to me why Jones is included. It does not make sense why Willis, given similar if not more coverage, is not. In the talk page and here, you brought up inclusion dependent on judge's ruling. However, the judge in Jones' case ruled entirely for him and blocked Willis from prosecuting. I'm not seeing any consistent application of your standards. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

BLP is not "my" standard, it's the standard we should all be following. Even the articles talking about the travel say Roman's attorney has not provided evidence, which I expect we'll see in the February 15 hearing. That they traveled together in and of itself means nothing. It would be a big deal if the judge rules that this is a conflict of interest. Adding the insinuations of impropriety on her part now is a BLP violation for all the reasons I shared below in my reply to Magnolia.

While you're trying a whataboutism in how our BLPs treat the people Willis indicted, I will note that they were indicted. And the court process with Burt Jones has run its course. It has not with Willis and Wade. Willis has until February 2 to file her written response. We need to exhibit patience. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What I'm doing is providing examples that we presumably both agree are due for inclusion to show why the mention of Willis & Wade is also valid for inclusion, so that we have something to ground us on the same page rather than just speaking past each other. I'm concerned that the haphazard citing of BLP policies you did below is indicative of that; among the policies you bring up include BLPPRIMARY is when all the cited sources are secondary (Magnolia just restored my old edit, which is entirely based on secondary RS). I'm not claiming that indictments are 1:1 the same thing as Willis-Wade (although my examples include unindicted people), only that inclusion of content related to judicial proceedings is clearly not incumbent on a judge's ruling.

I agree that BLP is the standard we should all be following. Along with the examples from the Willis article, I can also provide the example mentioned in WP:BLPPUBLIC: Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred. Seems pretty apparent that the Willis-Wade revelations are this very textbook example. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There are enough sources to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE; however the level of detail about the allegations disrupted WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely true. This is a "meat and potato" case of including allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; Willis is a public figure, there are allegations that are noteworthy, hence it is clearly established that at least something should be included in the bio. I happened to take a stab at the bio by adding one relatively short paragraph. Now it is up to editorial discretion to determine how much content is DUE. Some of it cannot be done now, because the curtain is still open. The fact that there is also an article Georgia election racketeering prosecution where the allegations can be covered in-depth suggests that Willis's bio should only contain a short summary – at least for now. Politrukki (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Lemme quickly show the text that Politrukki added to Willis' bio a few hours ago that I just reverted: On January 8, 2024, an attorney for Mike Roman, a defendant in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution case accused Willis of prosecutorial misconduct. According to the court filing, Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade (whom Willis hired for the case) had a romantic relationship, creating an improper conflict of interest. The filing asserts that Willis went on vacations with Wade and so Willis profited from hiring him; it cited sealed records for the divorce of Wade and his wife. These unsubstantiated allegations, sourced to court filings, violate BLP. They are alleging misconduct without the proof, which we have not seen, being adjudicated upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a case wether I think we should take a wait and see approach. A lot of accusations have been made but odds are good that what we would want to say about this a year from now will be different than what we would suggest today. These could be facts that kill her career but if proven false they may amount to just a footnote. There is no time limit. Springee (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I was of skeptical of adding something at first, but I've come around to think we need something (though I would note that the unsealed divorce papers didn't reveal much. But not just anything: something that doesn't just copy the claims over wholesale. Boil it down to a couple sentences at most, general language that the accusation was made and noting that it is currently just an accusation (leave the discussion of any evidence for Judge McAfee's courtroom) to which Willis has not yet officially responded (a speech at a church is not an official court document). As for sources, perhaps stick to Atlanta area outlets that understand the nuances of Georgia better than national ones, like the AJC or one of the local news TV affiliates, as long as it isn't just reupping something from the networks/wire services. I think that strikes a nice balance. Paris1127 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Coverage has been widespread, and sources cited are reliable. Fani Willis is a public figure; readers would benefit from a paragraph about this topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If "widespread coverage" and "reliable sources" were the only considerations, I'd agree with you. But they are not the only considerations, and considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: What specific part of WP:BLP leads you to conclude that? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked.

WP:BLPSTYLE: BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.

WP:BLPBALANCE: Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all.

WP:BLPPRIMARY: Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

WP:BLPGOSSIP: 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. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.

WP:BLPPRIVACY: The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.

When it comes to BLPBALANCE's "disinterested tone", I'm concerned with yours. You wrote one of the other editors who is pushing this content by saying Fani Willis is one of the "mischievous Democrats" and that Fani's poor judgment will unravel on the front page of every reliable source by the end of the week, and your edit will be in like the dirty shoe it is. Let it be noted that even if she is dating someone she is working with, this is not necessarily an unacceptable conflict of interest. At least you advised them not to violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

As we say here in Mississippi, you've been busier than a church fan in August, but a deeper read of each of those policies shows that few have much significance within the context of this article. The depth of coverage on this very public person is overwhelming. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

And there's the rub: the "depth of coverage" is all reliant on the court filings (see WP:BLPPRIMARY above), and mentions that Roman’s filing included no concrete proof that Willis personally benefited from hiring Wade.[1] If there's a "deeper read" of BLP to provide that overtakes that, I don't see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

We are only relying what reliable sources (many many of them) have reported. Isnt that what we do here? DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

With caveats, as described (to a point) above. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The investigations and allegations are now from multiple places and widely covered. The depth of coverage argument no longer applies, the list is in Talk:Fani Willis . The only place that Fani Willis and this matter is NOT being connected is on Wikipedia. Helpingtoclarify (talk) 18:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

She has now responded in court documents, so that information can and should be included in the article. Speculation beyond what has been admitted or proven in court should not. Go4thProsper (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Right, that is now the case. So many editors lack patience, which is problematic when it comes to editing a contentious BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

As well as why we need better adherence to WP:NOT#NEWS. We're meant to summarize events, and while we can include current events, we should be extremely cautious of rushing to add news that requires significant validation (such as claims re BLP) even if every major news sources is talking about it. Masem (t) 17:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Amen. It'd be great if some of you could pop over to Talk:Fani Willis and tell this to the brigade of impatient editors who are very very mad at me for following BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, please pop over to Talk:Fani Willis. Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 19:02, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Mark Bourrie, again

• Mark Bourrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Over the past month, another suspected Spoonkymonkey sock, Oneofff, appeared to challenge claims in this article. There have been a number of past discussions about this same issue, such as:

• Talk:Mark Bourrie#IP attacks and the two sections below it
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive285#Mark Bourrie
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive296#Mark Bourrie

All of these discussions were started by Spoonkymonkey socks, and since they have a penchant for using legal threats as a first resort in dispute resolution, they get themselves blocked before anyone can take their complaint seriously. But the thing is there is an issue here, and we're obligated to get BLPs right when editors bring complaints in good faith, even when they do so in ways that go against our social norms.

Spoonkymonkey objects to our description of Bourrie's testimony in the 2015 fraud trial of Canadian Senator Mike Duffy. The most recent revision of the contested section reads as follows:

In April 2015, during the fraud trial of Senator Mike Duffy, Bourrie testified that he received an unsolicited cheque for $500 from Duffy, after spending an estimated 80–100 hours combating internet trolls who had posted material about Duffy, including editing Duffy's Wikipedia entry. Bourrie testified that he did not recall asking for payment and that his research services would usually run $100 per hour. Christopher Waddell, a journalism professor and former Parliament Hill correspondent, said it was "inappropriate" for Bourrie, as a journalist, to accept paid work from Duffy.

References

Note that the Canadaland article was published April 9, 2015. On the same day, Bourrie wrote a rebuttal on his "Ottawa Watch" blog (now offline, archived here) which Canadaland also published in slightly modified form on April 15 ([2]), in which Bourrie challenges certain details of David Akin's article. While our article is I think a fair representation of the sources, we do not mention Bourrie's rebuttal at all, and that seems to violate WP:BLPBALANCE.

Oneofff's last attempt to add Bourrie's rebuttal read as follows: (diff to current revision)

In April 2015, during the fraud trial of Senator Mike Duffy, Bourrie testified that he received an unsolicited cheque for $500 from Duffy, after spending an estimated 80–100 hours combating internet trolls who had posted material about Duffy before Duffy was appointed to the Senate, including editing Duffy's Wikipedia entry. Bourrie testified that he did not recall asking for payment and that his research services would usually run $100 per hour. Bourrie said he did the work while he was teaching at Concordia University, not while he was working in the media. He also stated he never covered the Senate or wrote about Duffy afterwards.

References

I see a few problems:

1. "before Duffy was appointed to the Senate" is dubious. The Globe & Mail is clear that Bourrie worked for Duffy after Duffy was appointed to the Senate; the National Post doesn't give an explicit timeline but quotes Bourrie saying that the posts were made "from the time [Duffy] got appointed". I don't know how we reconcile Bourrie saying one thing in a rebuttal and then being quoted saying the opposite two days later.
2. The removal of the quote from Christopher Waddell is more tricky. Without it, Bourrie's defense that he worked at Concordia at the time has no context. But I'm not sure that Waddell's opinion should be included: while we're presenting it fairly and in their voice, I don't see evidence that Waddell is an expert in journalistic ethics, and Canadaland is the only publication (that I could find) which published it. This also came up in the "archive 296" discussion linked above but wasn't acted on.
3. "he never covered the Senate or wrote about Duffy afterwards" maybe just needs clarity. In Bourrie's own words he reported on the Senate's justice committee while a law student, but had not done so "in at least three years". His rebuttal isn't clear on what date he's referring to, but I assume he means before 2009 when Duffy consulted him on the malicious posts.

Appreciate any thoughts on this. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 06:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't include the rebuttal because per WP:ABOUTSELF it is either unduly self-serving or makes exceptional claims (claims that are contradicted). I'd probably think about dropping the statement from Waddell also. TarnishedPath^talk 09:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I’m Mark Bourrie.

I did not cover Duffy in the Senate

I mentioned Duffy once in one of my books (2014) I did not cover the Senate justice committee as a law student, I covered some meetings for Law Times. I stoped writing for them in 2007, when I started teaching at Concordia. This was before Duffy’s appointment to the Senate.

I knew Duffy for years before he was a senator. We sat next to each other in the parliamentary press gallery.

For what it’s worth, you have the name of one of my books wrong and are missing two others 142.117.142.7 (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Waddell was what’s called a “dial a quote”. Call him up and he would give good quote on and “facts” that he was fed. He did nothing to check them. In this case, he was wrong. The quote suggests I am unethical, a serious allegation to make about a lawyer and journalist. Despite Ivanvector’s claim, now written into the entry, I did not retire from journalism in 2017. A simple google search would have found the journalism I’ve done since then, including to long features in the Globe and Mail last year. As well, the year of my birth is wrong.

Look, I know I’ve alienated Wikipedia but I have felt ridden by anonymous editors from the beginning. The page on me was begun some 20 years ago with a false claim that I lost a lawsuit and from them on, it has been nothing but an invasion of my privacy and an embarrassment. Take a look at my bio. I could have brought so much to this project, if anyone had shown any kindness or good faith. Take a look at the edits attributed to me. There were many hundreds of them that fixed errors in articles or added to them. I won’t belabour the point. But at least as far as Canada is concerned, on Wikipedia you are either out or you are in. 142.117.142.7 (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

As the year of birth given in the article did not match the age given in the cited source I have updated it to match. I can see nothing in the article (or in IvanVector's post above) which states that you/Bourrie retired from journalism in 2017. I have not looked into the rest of these comments yet. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think TarnishedPath means to refer to WP:BLPSELFPUB, although the text is basically the same. I'm not meaning to argue for its inclusion, but I've always interpreted that guideline to mean that we can't use a self-published source to support material in our article that is unduly promotional or about other people or unrelated events, not that we can't use them if any of those things are present in the source. I see how that would be open to interpretation. The other problem is that Bourrie's rebuttal was published by Canadaland, which is neither self-published nor questionable. Thus if we include Waddell's opinion, then we can also include Bourrie's reply. But I agree that we probably should omit them both - unless someone can demonstrate that Waddell is an expert on journalistic ethics or a source of expert opinion on the goings-on of the Press Gallery, it's just a random cherrypicked opinion, and it fails WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. As for "former journalist", I mentioned this source in my edit summary, which reads "Bourrie was a journalist from 1978 until 2017". It seemed to me that the article content supported that timeline, and it also seemed to me that Oneofff was trying to make that distinction. I'm happy to see the error corrected; likewise for the birth date which I did not review. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing on Waddell's profile at Carleton University leads me to believe he's a subject matter in journalist ethics.

It's listed that "He received a Ph. D in Canadian history from York University in Toronto in 1981, completing a thesis on price and wage controls and consumer rationing in Canada in World War II". No post-doc studies or fellowships are detailed that would lead me to believe that he's a subject matter expert in journalist ethics. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Presuming that we're generally in agreement that Waddell's quote should be removed (I was hoping for more participation but it is mid-week) I have removed it. But I have a broader question: should Duffy's trial be mentioned in Bourrie's bio at all? It's described here as though Bourrie's testimony was a critical element of the trial, but Bourrie isn't mentioned at all in our coverage of the trial in Duffy's bio nor in our article on the Canadian Senate expenses scandal which it was part of. That's telling, isn't it? The newspaper sources we use were published on April 17, 2015, the same day Bourrie testified, and two weeks into Duffy's criminal trial which was practically the biggest news in the country at the time, and papers were covering every routine detail of it. But April 17 was a Friday, and by Monday the coverage was on to other things. Going forward in time: on May 7, Macleans ([3]) mentions the defence trying to block admission of the evidence Bourrie brought of harassment of Duffy on Wikipedia, and on June 1 the CBC ([4]) reported that it was ruled inadmissible. At least the Toronto Star and National Post also reported that, very much in passing. After June 2, the only source I found from a quick Google search which mentions Bourrie in the context of the trial at all is the judgement itself ([5]), Wikipediocracy ([6]), and various sources (including Bourrie's site, FairPress.ca) covering Bourrie's feud with Canadaland, but we can't use any of those for various reasons. It seems to me that it's an exceptionally minor detail of Bourrie's career, and practically not a detail at all of the trial. Is there any good reason we should include it? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 04:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That was one thing I was a bit confused about when I started reading this thread. I really don't see a good reason why it's there. TarnishedPath^talk 04:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm also not convinced there's a compelling reason to include it; as we all seem to be in agreement and nobody else has weighed in on this thread I have removed the paragraph. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for updating his bibliography, TarnishedPath. Mr. Bourrie, if you're still watching this thread: while reviewing sources I happened to notice that the title of Bush Runner is also misspelled on your website's "about" page, in case you wanted to correct it. Regarding TarnishedPath's advice: you won't be able to leave an edit request on the talk page since it's protected from logged-out editing, but if any time in the future you see further abusive editing on the article that we don't catch, you can make a request on this page, or if you would rather deal with it privately you can contact our volunteer response team, who are signatories to a confidentiality agreement. Their intake email, regrettably buried in an FAQ well away from the main page, is info-en-qwikimedia.org.

There are still some issues with sources on the page:

1. I'm trying to find a source for Bourrie teaching at Concordia from 2007-2009; it was previously in the article without a source. Oneofff provided this, which we can use although it's written by Bourrie (but not self-published). It appears to be hosted on a WordPress site but the document itself is reliable. The article would be more stable if we could find an independent source, but I've had no success so far.
2. There are several dead links. I recovered one yesterday, but others should be reviewed and archived, or a better source found if they're offline and can't be verified.
3. Speaking of #2, the source used to support the sentence summarizing his early career, an article from the Ottawa Sun titled "'Prince of Darkness' sues blogger", is not available online. The archive link is to a page where a reader can pay a fee to order a copy of it, and the newspaper's online archives only go back to 2011. Given its title I don't think it would be an ideal source anyway. Can we find a different one?

There are more things we could probably improve, like adding some coverage of his interest and work on Great Lakes shipwrecks if there's independent sourcing available, but that's less urgent and can probably be handled on the talk page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:56, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Ivanvector no worries with the updates. I might try and look for book reviews for any of the books that don't have any in the bibliography when I have time.

I found a Canada's National Observer article which says "The former Concordia teacher and current law student". The publication appears to be reliable, having editorial staff and policies. TarnishedPath^talk 01:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Adam Bakri - correction of my nationality in the bio box.

Dear Noticeboard,

I hope this message finds you in good spirits. I am writing to you today regarding the representation of my national identity on my Wikipedia page: Adam Bakri. As it stands, the page incorrectly categorizes me as “Israeli, Palestinian” in the bio box when, in fact, I have consistently identified as Palestinian in both public and private spheres. This misrepresentation is deeply concerning to me.

The sources currently cited on my page to support the claim of my nationality include interviews and public statements where I have clearly identified myself as Palestinian. This evidences a significant misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the cited material, and I respectfully request that this be rectified.

Here is how the current categorizaiton of my nationality as “Israeli” violates the Biographies Of Living Persons Policies on Wikipedia:

1-Contentious Material: The page contains misrepresentations of my nationality, which are both objectionable and incorrect. This qualifies as "contentious material" about a living person under the Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. According to this policy, such material, if "unsourced or poorly sourced, must be removed immediately," not only from the article itself but also from its talk page. Participants on the talk page are making false claims that I have identified as Palestinian Israeli, without sourcing. One individual has cited an archived/outdated version of an article from Interview Magazine, which has since been corrected to accurately reflect my identity. I have cited the updated article, along with other articles and snapshots from my verified social media platforms, where I clearly identify as Palestinian.

2-Immediate Action: The policy underscores the necessity of taking swift action to eliminate potentially harmful or inaccurately sourced content about living individuals. This signifies that I have solid grounds to request the removal or correction of the information related to my nationality, particularly if the current sources fail to accurately represent how I identify myself, or if the interpretation of those sources is mistaken.

3-Reporting to the Noticeboard: If my attempts to correct the information through the article's talk page or by editing directly have been unsuccessful, or if I've encountered resistance in making these corrections, the BLP policy recommends reporting the issue to the appropriate noticeboard. That is precisely why I am here, reporting to you, because I have faced such resistance, and failed to make the change numerous times. For me, this means turning to the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard, where I can outline my concerns for both the wider community and administrators to examine and address the issue.

4-Libelous Material: The mention of "potentially libelous" material in the policy highlights the critical need for accuracy and the potential legal implications of Wikipedia content for me. Although my case centers on misrepresentation rather than defamation, the principle of ensuring accurate and verifiable information about living persons still applies.

Here's another examination of the sources cited, where my national identity is distinctly and straightforwardly stated as Palestinian:

https://www.gqmiddleeast.com/culture/palestinian-actor-adam-bakri-quest

https://www.esquireme.com/culture/how-adam-bakri-came-to-his-senses

https://www.instagram.com/adammbakri/?hl=en

I hope for your cooperation in this matter and expect that action will be taken to rectify the inaccuracies discussed. I appreciate your help in advance and thank you for your attention to this important issue.

Adam Bakri — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACTORADAMBAKRI (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

This is something of a minefield. The article describes Adam Bakri as one of the Palestinian citizens of Israel. This is because Israel is a state while Palestine has not been since 1948. As the article Palestinian citizens of Israel says, "Common practice in contemporary academic literature is to identify this community as Palestinian as it is how the majority self-identify."--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you or are you not an Israeli citizen? If you are an Israeli citizen, then it should be kept in the infobox, if you aren't it should be removed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Bakri was born in Jaffa in 1988, so it seems probable that he does have Israeli citizenship. The infobox currently gives his nationality as "Israeli, Palestinian". Nationality and national identity are not the same thing, eg on a passport or in legal documents.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 21:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

{{Infobox person}} offers |nationality= and |citizenship=. Could this be a case where using both (one for Palestinian, the other for Israeli) may be warranted? Nardog (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

But even if it can be argued that it is accurate, is it necessary? We often populate infoboxes with material that is contextually trivial, just because there are fields. Does it convey any information needed to understanding his career that other points of data do not? We have thats he was born in Jaffa, we have in the lead that he is Palestinian. There are certainly careers for which national citizenship is a vital piece of information - political ones, for example. I'm not convinced that "actor" is one such career. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking along the exact same lines as Nat. What's the point of even including the word "Israel"? Everyone in the world knows about the relationship between Palestinians and Israel. Unless there is some qualifier attached, like for example "Palestinian-American", then everyone knows immediately what country he comes from. Seems like unnecessary info to me.

There's a huge difference between a nation and a state/country. A "nation" is defined as "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It's separate from the country or the state (government). In the US, for example, we all come from different histories, cultures and descents, yet we're a nation simply because we all inhabit the same territory. In both the US and Canada are separate nations, such as the Sioux, Apache, Cree, or Tlingit. These people usually identify their nationality based on their culture and heritage rather than simply a territory or state. In this case, I don't see that there's a need to even name what country the subject is a citizen of. It's already self-evident. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There is a big difference between a Palestinian that is a citizen of Israel and one who is not in Israel. Bakri was free to study theatre at an major Israeli University and traveled regularly between the U.S. and Israel as a child according to that Interview article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I've managed to find a reliable source saying explicitly that he's an Israeli citizen [7], so I've added that to the "Early life" section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Entire keyboards have been worn out on Wikipedia debating whether Andy Murray is Scottish or British. This is because national identity and citizenship are not necessarily the same thing.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Tommy Vext

Tommy Vext (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Accusations against this artist have been repeatedly readded, for example in Special:Diff/1197348778, Special:Diff/1202499379, and Special:Diff/1202927575 (all by different people). While there is sourcing here, I'm not convinced that it's sufficiently reliable for including such accusations in a BLP. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPSOURCES, MetalSucks is considered usable for its reviews and news articles. It also states "exercise caution when MetalSucks is the only source making a statement. While that site is the first to obtain the court documents about the accusation and report it, other media outlets picked it up and reported it.[8][9][10] Vext may have been exonerated[11] but it doesn't change the fact that accusations were made. It's worth noting both the accusations AND the exoneration. NJZombie (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Him saying he was exonerated does not mean that he was actually exonerated. If only accusations were made, then we should not be covering it under WP:BLPCRIME. However, the fact that there was a restraining order obtained should be enough to report the fact that a restraining order was obtained, but in California the request for a restraining order is not a criminal charge, nor is its granting a criminal conviction, so we should probably avoid going into detail about the claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Peter_McGuffin

Hi there, I would like to report the passing of Peter McGuffin. I understand that he passed away on the 30th of January 2024. I heard of his passing from a mutual friend who is also a member of the South Wales Guitar society. I find the editing of the page a bit baroque - so if somebody could update it for me, that would be great. Many thanks, Andrew Sherlock — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.48.70 (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, we cannot add that someone has passed until it has been reported in a reliable source, such as a newspaper obituary, or the website of one of the places at which he worked. I understand that that may seem much, but Wikipedia is the target of many hoax death claims and occasional honest errors, and we must maintain our standard. If you see such a source online, feel free to bring it back here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@NatGertler Tweet [12] by International Society of Psychiatric Genetics, it may be acceptable. Article at Peter McGuffin. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added the death (although with a slightly vague date due to the source.) The article could use some basic editing -- there are twenty references that are handed-numbered and then just listed at the bottom, rather than being prperly ref-tag formatted, first off. There are signs that large chunks were copied from off-site (notably that several paragraphs were in their twice, and the use of non-Wikipedian section headings, although I have now excised the duplicate and done proper header formatting.) If someone has a bit more energy tha under-the-weather Nat to tackle these things today, there's an easy target for your efforts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Several different sets of edits over the years brought in that hard-coded mess, such as User:Peter.Mcguffin (whose edits are obviously copied from somewhere since they refer to numbered refs that did not exist in that timeframe) which were then corrected by User:90.243.162.30 (demonstrating connection among those two) and User:90.253.146.252. Someone with a mind to clean up could use those as places to focus. DMacks (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Ed Rush

Ed Rush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A second (well, fourth, but you know what I mean) eye on this article would be useful. Per the discussion on the talk page, an editor feels it is all fine to add an unsourced alleged birth name (complete with a {{citation needed}} tag already in place) as that doesn't count as "controversial". Personally, my view is that "controversial" is not the benchmark here: WP:V is what's important – everywhere, but especially in a BLP. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Another editor filed a request for dispute resolution about this article at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I closed the DRN case because, as a case about a biography of a living person, this noticeboard is the best forum to address it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hunt

After many years of relative stability, @LokiTheLiar has been pushing to expand the section on the 2015 online shaming incident in Tim Hunt's Wikipedia article. He has gotten what he (and others) interprets as a consensus for this at WP:NPOVN [13] over my strong objections. I need input on his proposal (which I believe will ultimately violate WP:DUE in its length before it can be made accurate enough to comply with WP:BLP). I'm happy to say more about that. But I also need immediate help on a procedural question: Should these changes be implemented while we're still discussing them? Loki seems to think it is important to introduce the disputed material now; I think BLP warrants caution, and we should work on the talk page until the issue is settled. If someone with experience on BLP could weigh in, I would appreciate it.Thomas B (talk) 05:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is classic WP:FORUMSHOPPING and you really need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Just because you "strongly object" doesn't mean that your opinions override those of everybody else. At the NPOVN and talkpage discussions, nobody else agreed with your version which effectively frames Tim Hunt's comments and the surrounding controversy entirely through the lens of "online shaming". I really think it's a waste of time to have yet another noticeboard discussion, so I would advise people to instead comment at Talk:Tim Hunt#Proposed new version of the controversy section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus has been reached in two different places, and a quite clear consensus to boot. Like I said on the talk page, it's not like anyone else here is unaware of WP:BLP.

(Also: Thomas Basboll, if you want to actually ping someone you can do {{u|Thomas Basboll}} to produce the effect earlier in the sentence, including the same automatic Wiki notification. Just putting an @ sign in front of a name only does something in the special inline Reply dialogue.) Loki (talk) 06:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

A RFC has now been opened to resolve the issue: Talk:Tim_Hunt#RfC:_2015_remarks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would urge someone with admin responsibility to look at this RFC on Talk:Tim Hunt. There is a significant BLP issue emerging there concerning the 2015 Twitter controversy. Without going into the details, crucial facts that the initial social media claims were untrue is not being included and undue prominence is being given to the initial claims made on social media. WCM_email 08:26, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

This has now been to NPOVN, ANI, BLPN and there's a block being considered for one editor AND a RfC is running. I'm quite sure many admins are well aware of what's happening, and - yes - some of them have made comments. Most of the editors in the discussion are very experienced and well used to dealing with BLPs. Bon courage (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard Carlson biography

The fact that Mr Carlson was the Director of the United States Information Agency is untrue. He did hold all the other positions reported in the article, all during the time while the Director of the Agency was Charles Z. Wick, not Mr. Carlson. I know this because I served in USIA at the time, and had personal contact with both gentlemen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.170.17.70 (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Dick Carlson article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That he was director of the USIA was in the lead but not the body of the article, and was not supported by the cited source, so I have removed it Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Peter Fraser (judge) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Fraser_(judge)

Dear Wikipedia,

I work at the Judicial Office, which supports the judiciary of England and Wales.

I have twice removed the two paragraphs below from this article Peter_Fraser_(judge) but each time they have been reinstated. The paragraphs are:

"Peter rowed for the Lady Margaret Boat Club for most of his time at college. Boats he rowed in won the University Clinker IVs and finished fourth in the May Bumps and he was selected for Blue Boat trials.[4]

In 1986 Peter joined the Royal Marines with two friends from Cambridge University, Prince Edward and Quintus Travis. Peter and Prince Edward left the Royal Marines in early 1987.[5][6]"

The first paragraph is inaccurate. It is also viewed as irrelevant to Lord Justice Fraser's role as a judge, the reason the article has been written.

The second article is also viewed as irrelevant, and I believe should not be included according to Wikipedia's editorial guidelines, which state under the heading that begins "Avoid gossip...": "Ask yourself... whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject."

I have now removed the paragraphs for a third time and hope they will not reappear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.33.196.47 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Between the previous comment being made and my looking at the article, the text in question was reinstated. From a quick look, the IP editor above seems to have a point: it looks like trivia to me, and the sources are either bad (The Sun has been deprecated since 2019) or only tangentially about Fraser. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Your statement here suggests that Wikipedia's guidelines for editing when you have a conflict of interest apply to you; as your not editing through an account and your using a shifting IP address, I will note that here. Also, I see no relevant disussion going on on the article's talk page, such disagreements should be turned toward discussion rather than repeated insertion/deletion of the same material, which is considered edit warring. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I opened a discussion on the talk page. I removed the deprecated source per WP:THESUN, and also removed the rest of that paragraph, because the Guardian article only verifies that he left the Marines, which is not notable or significant. I don't consider him rowing in college to be notable or significant either, he played sports in college, big deal, and he is not even mentioned in Lady Margaret Boat Club or May Bumps or Blue Boat. Unless he achieved some sort of notability for his rowing, or it has received some significant coverage, I lean towards leaving that out too. A passing mention in a source is not good enough for inclusion, in my view. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

David Miller (sociologist)

To absolutely no-one's surprise, Selfstudier (talk · contribs) has reverted the deletion of his own addition to the David Miller article, following the conclusion of his employment tribunal. The reversion goes against WP:BRD, and it violates the prohibition of WP:BLPPRIMARY that says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The only other source is a highly partisan one. An addition on this topic should come with high-quality sources and achieve consensus on the talk page. The sort of aggressive editing we've just seen (on an article with a 1RR restriction) is not appropriate for this contentious topic. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Reasons other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT are necessary for reversion. The primary is not used at all for the edit, it is supplied to back up the secondary source only. The secondary source is partisan? How exactly? Bold edits do not require prior consensus either. Selfstudier (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

If your goal is the censure of the editor, this is not the forum for it. If your concern is about the content, there are other sources which can be added covering much the same information, such as this Jewish News article covers much the same information. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Any comment about the use of a court document as a source? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not used as a source. Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Time-wasting comment -- it is currently #12 in the list of references. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there anything in the article that is cited solely to the primary source and not supported by the news piece? If so, it should be removed. If not, BLPPRIMARY's "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source" applies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

There's a line in the lead that says 'A statement from his solicitors said "This judgement establishes for the first time ever that anti-Zionist beliefs are protected in the workplace."' It seems unlikely to me that this statement would be due. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The Jewish News piece indicates that statement as only a minor rewording. ("Celebrating the judgment Miller’s lawyers claimed it established for the first time the protection of anti-Zionist beliefs in the workplace.") The Guardian quotes it directly. If there's a question on "due", it's only in that the article is on Miller and not on the case. However, it oughtn't be intro material. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I should have said "due for such prominent placement in the lead". I'd feel the same about quoting the opposition's post-decision statement, "This will ultimately make Jewish students less safe", also quoted in The Guardian. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Idk, that is kinda what the whole thing was about, opposition alleged AS, Miller defence was AZ. Selfstudier (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This is now being covered by mainstream UK news [14]. It's clearly due to include in some capacity. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The article should I think rely more on that Guardian source (or others) than the court document. I don't see any issue with the actual text in the article relating to the employment tribunal though; looks fine from what I can see. Endwise (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

My view is that it is DUE to mention that Miller’s case is the first time that anti-Zionist beliefs have been found to be a ‘protected belief’, but not in the lead. I would agree with the current wording, and also agree that the Guardian source is, as a secondary source, more suitable than a court document. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:22, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, the accusations of AS that led to all this are in the lead and the refutation of them needs to be as well. I see someone else has anyway done this. Added the Telegraph which also has in its own voice "In a judgment handed down on Monday by Judge Rohan Pirani, the Bristol employment tribunal ruled that the professor’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010." Selfstudier (talk) 12:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that at all. It's just the "FIRST EVER" bit, which only one party to the dispute is claiming, that seems better covered in the body. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes I feel the same, especially since it doesn't seem of that much relevance to the biography of David Miller. I mean perhaps the case will become iconic and Miller name, whether he likes it or he doesn't will become associated with this right, but until that happens then the relevance to Miller is only that established he had this right. The only minor relevance to Miller seems to be that he couldn't be sure he had this right until his case succeeded, but that seems too minor. Nil Einne (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The issues raised here now seem to be dealt with well in the article, except two things: 1) The body now says "The tribunal made a landmark ruling" - but the "landmark ruling" is a quote from the lawyers; we don't have a secondary source saying it in their own voice, so we can't say it in our voice. 2) Should Middle East Eye, a weak source, be used so prominently (and without attribution) in the lead and body of a BLP, which requires high quality sources? BobFromBrockley (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Special WP:BLPCRIME exception for beheading cases?

• Beheading video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Timeline of incidents involving QAnon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of people who were beheaded (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A man has recently been arrested and charged with murder. He has not been tried or convicted. He is not a public figure. WP:BLPCRIME would seem to apply, but the circumstances of this case may be clouding some editor's judgment. Perhaps mine.

The case has been widely reported with headlines such as "Pennsylvania man arrested after allegedly killing his father and displaying his decapitated head on YouTube". I removed the entries from the above-mentioned articles on BLP grounds, but my edit has already been reverted on one article so I am starting this discussion. The editor who reverted me stated that "BLPCRIME doesn't apply - text does not accuse, only describes), reported in mainstream news". Does BLPCRIME apply to this case, and, if not, why not? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The text of the section does not "suggest(s) the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime". It only describes what the news article has described (and the news article also does not accuse him of a crime, it only describes the events). It's a grey area. I'm not sure it necessarily meets notability thresholds however, aside from that beheadings are extremely rare events, and recordings (either of the event or the aftermath) are even more extraordinary. And no, I'm not a 'murder junkie' as you characterized editors of the article in your contributions on Wale's talk page. That characterization, even if not directed at a specific editor, is uncivil. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

How is describing the crime and the arrest not suggesting that the named living person committed the crime? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I had the same question. The text includes ...and charged Mohn with first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse. Schazjmd (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The text does not say "Mohn murdered and decapitated his father" in wikivoice. It also doesn't say "Mohn probably/obviously etc" did so. I believe that's the threshold. There's a difference between WP describing something, and readers inferring something. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

You believe the threshold for "suggests that the person ... is accused of having committed a crime" is to say in wikivoice that they did commit a crime? Seriously? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Is the snark necessary - expressing incredulity that a particular interpretation is entertained by a fellow editor? I wrote what I wrote. I didn't say that my interpretation is the threshold. I was speculating, based on a reading of WP:BLPCRIME and Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Crime victims and perpetrators. If there is a strict threshold - rather than the open-to-interpretation "editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article" - with the italics my emphasis - then by all means, share it. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

CP, would you object to a description of the alleged crime that does not include the name of the accused? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:22, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would not personally object to the information being included if it did not name the accused, if others feel that meets the guidance of the policy. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That would be the approach I would recommend. There's an open question about how to handle source urls or titles that mention the name. If they can be avoided without sacrificing the quality of the content, that's probably the safest bet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

It is hard for me to see how "charged [him] with first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse" is not exactly the kind of content that BLPCRIME applies to. Do we need to include the name? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Firefangledfeathers. To most people, the name really doesn't mean anything. It's just a word without a face, void of form and substance But to the subject and people who know him, it is a majorly huge deal. It's one thing to have your name splashed all over the newspapers, but at least there info changes daily. Encyclopedias tend to stick around for a long time, so they require a lot more compassion and care to be taken. If he's found innocent of the crime, then we would just end up victimizing him even more, and it's the morally right thing to avoid that as much as possible. Even the newspapers were careful enough to use the word "allegedly". But we need to have much higher standards and take more care.

Now I'm not saying he is innocent or a victim at this point, but I've seen this same discussion on this board many, many times. And in one case it was a mass shooting where the guy was caught on multiple cameras being taken down by police --and confessed everything right there on the scene! (I was even in support of naming that one.) They still always go in favor of waiting for a conviction before naming the suspect, and considering the long-term implications, I have to agree. It's not just the policy, but the spirit behind the policy.

The good news is, we can still tell the whole story just by using generic names, like "a man". It will read just the same and convey the same meaning. If he's convicted, then it's no problem to add it at that time. I'd also keep in mind that if his father is recently deceased, then he too still falls under BLP policy. Zaereth (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Just here to agree with FFF and Zaereth. I consistently advocate for leaving out the names of people accused of crimes--though, I again agree with Zaereth that there are some instances where the details of the crime and the person's involvement are so obvious that the caution does not apply. While I think there's little doubt as to the perpetrator in the instant case, the details are murky enough that it does not fall into the obvious category for me. As to URLs, it is probably best practice to try to avoid the name there as well, but I am not overly bothered. While an argument can be made that by including a link with the name in the address is a Wikipedia endorsement of the name, that doesn't strike me as particularly compelling. For me, it's not our job to protect the name, it's our job to make sure Wikipedia is appropriately circumspect. As ever though, happy to go wherever consensus leads on both issues. Have a nice week everyone. Dumuzid (talk) 23:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Anastrophe: Based on the comments here, will you go along with removing the names from the description of the incident? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's not necessary to 'ask my permission' on the matter (I say that light-heartedly) - I'm just a random jackass on the internet. A reasonable compromise appears to be at play, so by all means, go with removing the names, though it all still seems rather a grey area that probably has no easy policy-based solution. The less I see the word 'beheading' the happier I will be, and my happiness, a priori, is the most important thing ;) cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I have removed the names. The wording could be improved. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bushra Bibi

This article is mostly about the personal life of a very private lady. I'm not sure even if she is notable for a personal article or we should redirect it to Family of Imran Khan. One thing is sure that we need a lot of cleanup so it complies with WP:BLP policy. Please help remove gossip-related stuff and something which is not "widely covered or known". Recently she was convicted over her un-Islamic marriage with Imran Khan in a Pakistani court which we should cover on her biography, but what her ex-husband is saying on a TV program in an interview is a primary source and should be removed (i.e. Bushra_Bibi#Alleged extramarital_affair. User:SheriffIsInTown insists that this is needed without reading WP:BLPGOSSIP. Can any one volunteer please? HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The section is sourced to Geo News, The Express Tribune, Dawn, Aljazeera English, and BBC News. The opposing editor is trying to WP:CENSOR sourced material under the blanket of WP:BLPGOSSIP only because the subject is a private lady. When they have so much media coverage, they do not remain private anymore. WP:BLPGOSSIP dictates about removal of poorly sourced content, this is by no means poorly sourced. Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything off of Wikipedia, they would not like about someone. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown Would you share an independent WP:SECONDARY reference that mentions this was actually an "Alleged extramarital affair". Secondary source means analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. You have give us actual links, not the links of Wikipedia pages. What her former husband is saying is a WP:PRIMARY source, also see WP:INTERVIEW. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

SheriffIsInTown I strongly advise you to take back your statement "Please do not allow censorship otherwise they will censor everything off of Wikipedia, they would not like about someone". Why are you passing comments like that? It seems to be a problem. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

HistoriesUnveiler Just ensures that any negative information must be extremely well-sourced or otherwise remove it. --Saqib (talk) 18:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The editor HistoriesUnveiler is involved in edit wars across multiple articles, and here, he is engaged in WP:Censoring and making completely false claims that Bushra Bibi is a private woman! She is the former first lady of Pakistan. She has faced numerous allegations and cases of corruption and corrupt practices, many of which have been proven, and resulted in convictions.[15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21] Before her marriage, she was Imran Khan's spiritual advisor, during which they also had illicit relationships, which have been confirmed multiple times by Bushra Bibi's former husband, as well as Imran Khan's former wife, close friends and others[22],[23],[24],[25] It has also been proven in the illegal marriage case for which she has been sentenced and fined under the marriage laws of Pakistan.[26],[27],[28]. War Wounded (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Tracy Chapman Biography

Two lines after saying Chapman appeared on Stephen Colbert in 2020, It says that here 2024 Grammy appearance was her first appearance in 7 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.217.107 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It says her first live televised performance in nine years. Text doesn't indicate that she performed on Colbert. Schazjmd (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

She performed on Seth Meyers, but it was a pre-recorded clip. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Dennis Drayna

Dennis Drayna (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page was created by subject's son, possible conflict of interest. Does page need to exist? Does not seem to be a public figure. Please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.164.5 (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence of COI, and subject appears to be reasonably notable - it isn't necessary for the subject of a blp to be a public figure. Is there anything specific in the article that strikes you as peacock wording, undue weight, libel/slanderous, or otherwise unacceptable in a blp? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

See edit summary https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Drayna&oldid=846287102 for evidence of COI. (Note I am not the IP). Lavalizard101 (talk) 12:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I presume you mean "Added biographic article on American human geneticist Dennis Drayna and contributions to science of stuttering. NOTE: Dennis Drayna in my father". Yes, I misspoke; there is a conflict of interest, but that does not inherently or explicitly mean that the edits are problematic. The person who added the information identified themselves, and their contributions to the article are - by my eye - uncontroversial, no loaded/peacock wording, or any other red-flags. If the content were larded with 'stellar accomplishements', 'top of his field', 'extraordinary contributions to' xyz, that would be problematic. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Jane Fraser (philanthropy)

Jane Fraser (philanthropy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Page for this subject and her organization was created by someone hired by subject (see history of notes for page creator).

Please review and remove any unsubstantiated or bias information, if page is deemed to be notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.152.164.5 (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Similarly to previous request re Dennis Drayna, can you fill us in on specifics? The person who created the page was forthright in noting the nature of their edits; a conflict of interest is not inherently inappropriate. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:21, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't look to be notable to me. While there are a few university and company profiles and such, and a few links to Amazon if someone wants to buy her books, I find not a single secondary source to confer notability. Maybe a good candidate for AFD? Zaereth (talk) 22:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Found some local coverage such as this Memphis Daily News article, but I'm not turning up anything that would pass the WP:GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Certainly, the casting of her being a "philanthropist" for being a non-profit executive (a role she inherited from her father) is not how we would generally wield the term. Lots of other promo-y things (citing a 2002 report that the endowment had grown from $3m to $17m since she took over in 1981; $3m invested in the Dow Jones in Feb 1981 would've been about $28m in Feb 2002.) So, promotional intent seems likely. Given that we have not seen a substantive update to the article in the past five years, and that the article creator has not been active in over a decade, I suspect a PROD would make this disappear with little effort. A look at the current sourcing on Stuttering Foundation of America also brings it into question (and much of the article reads like a brochure.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

HorsegiirL

• HorsegiirL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• ČLÁNOK, ZDIEĽAŤ (2024-01-31). "HorsegiirL: Berlínska DJ-ka s alter egom koňa. Miluje mrkvu, vôňu pokosenej trávy a nenávidí jednorožcov". Refresher (in Slovak).

Nowadays this artist presents a persona to the world, which we repeat verbatim to the world, as the only things known about this artist. ČLÁNOK 2024 reports this, but it also states the artist's name in its 5th paragraph and notes that "Stella Stallion" is not this person's name; in stark contrast to our article having the literal text "real name 'Stella Stallion'" in it. From that in turn we find that this person's career did not start in 2022, but has a publicly documented career, with sources in Berliner Zeitung and Kaput and elsewhere (many of which were previously in the article) documenting it back to 2013.

We were about to put this biography on the main page from Template:Did you know nominations/HorsegiirL. Can we let it even stand in this form, irrespective of whether it goes on the main page? It's in large part an entirely fictional biography of a persona, but it as written reports it as true. The very first source currently in the article states that the writer was restricted "from asking serious, journalistic questions about this musician’s provenance" right off the bat in paragraph 1. Should we be treating sources for a biography as reliable that outright say that they weren't allowed to ask real questions and get true answers?

Refresher seems fairly reliable at first blush, and it does unequivocally connect the dots here. So this goes two ways. Either Refresher is good and we really should adjust a biography that is in large part a pack of lies; or Refresher is inadequate and we should not have a biography where the sources themselves outright tell us that they are being "restricted" and required to tell us a pack of lies. It seems counter to the principle of a verifiable encyclopaedia to be containing things that are untrue from sources that tell us that they are untrue.

Uncle G (talk) 19:59, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

• I do just want to say that the version that was submitted and approved wasn't quite as messy as the version I found shortly after finding this (which would never have even left my userspace), which I've slightly cleaned up. How are you accessing the Refresher article, because much of it is behind a paywall (and I did put in a Resource Request for it)?--Launchballer 21:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • The trick is that the 5th paragraph isn't actually far enough in to be behind the paywall. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    • There's quite clearly more to it though, since none of the first five paragraphs mention Berliner Zeitung.--Launchballer 00:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
      • Not really. The Berliner Zeitung piece is a review of a song that the artist released in 2021, easily found by just looking for newspaper coverage of the artist. It was formerly cited in the article. I haven't cited it here because it has the real name in the title, sub-title, and first paragraph. More on BZ below. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oh dear. We are currently sourcing the claim HorsegiirL is a mixed-species DJ of equine descent to this Vogue article. This is an interview in which Horsegiirl says My unique position is that I am actually half-horse, half-human. The fact that a source quotes Horsegiirl as saying something extraordinary is not sufficient for Wikipedia to state it in Wikivoice as fact. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
• @Uncle G, you appear not to be aware of all of what happened here. The connection of the artist to a previous persona and a possible real name was not made in any RS before it appeared in the Wikipedia article (now revdel'ed, please look at it). I have the strong suspicion that the source of this content in the Refresher article is Wikipedia, where the connection was made using WP:SYNTH original research. It is likely correct, but there is a request not to connect HorsegiirL and her previous persona/real name that is believable. The DYK nomination suggested to put this person's real name on the Main Page against such requests. Usually we err on the side of privacy in such cases, and I see no compelling argument not to do so here. The article is not in good shape, I just performed a hasty revert to a version not including any privacy violations. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
  • This is why I posed the above choice about Refresher, you know. And I suspect that, given that to get this from Wikipedia Refresher would have needed quite a short lead time which seems unlikely, Refresher might have instead done what I simply did, which is look up the song and see the artist's real name given as writer credit, on music WWW sites dating from July 2023, long before this article even existed. Uncle G (talk) 22:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
    • I can only read machine translations of the Refresher article, but given that it contains the contradicting statements "her real name is unknown" and "her real name is <whatever>", I am going to assume it was indeed put together very quickly and with little thought. Not a good source for a BLP, and using original research while violating WP:BLPPRIMARY/WP:SYNTH isn't any better. —Kusma (talk) 22:34, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
      • I think that critiquing it based upon your own inability to read it is not on. The only critique would be that it got its information from us, which there are many indicators that it did not, starting with the close timeline that that would have required; including that it cited things that our article never cited, such as Instagram; and topped off by the fact that the information that the journalist found was one Google search away. That's actually why I searched. I looked at the other sources, some of which not even mentioning that they had made agreements not to do journalism, thought "They didn't agree to keep secret something that was public for the asking, did they?" "It cannot have been that ridiculous, surely?" It was.

        So I'm not buying your assertion that Refresher did anything but ordinary journalism, or is magically a bad source simply for doing that. You want to point to poor sources for a BLP, try the ones that didn't tell us that they are repeating the same pack of lies that Vogue at least told us was an agreed-to pack of lies. (Shame on you Horse and Hound! ☺) The ones that this article is currently based upon instead of the one that did journalism.

        If you want to go down the route of Refresher being a poor source, and can actually make a decent case that isn't based upon you rather than it, or for not using it because you don't "want to connect her two artist projects", then the next logical step is to nominate this for deletion since one of its major sources nullifies all of the other ones by stating outright that journalists have been "restricted" from asking questions and getting truthful answers. Leaving us with a known-false biographical article. These are our choices here, rectification, because we aren't about claiming people to have appeared in 2022 from nowhere as a horse, or deletion.

        Uncle G (talk) 00:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This somehow reminds me of another case we had a while back. The person was an internet "celebrity" (a term more broadly defined with respect to the internet). His real name was unknown, so the article was all about his fictional internet persona. Questions arose about potential libel and defamation being added to the article, or something like that.

The question I had was, if the real person behind the fictitious persona is unknown, then how can there be any defamation? In other words, does BLP policy even apply to a fictitious character? Somehow, I don't think so. I would think we should generally treat it as any other article on fiction. For example, in the lede I would probably make that clear, because as written it sounds like we're trying to describe her as a real centaur. Perhaps something more like : "HorsegiirL is a German DJ, singer and songwriter from Berlin. She performs as a fictitious persona; a mixed-species horse..." That at least would give the nature of this article right off the bat.

BLP of course comes into play if we start trying to out the real person behind the mask. We need exceptionally good sourcing, and I would say multiple exceptional sources, to cross that line from an article about fiction to one about a real person. (And even then we'd need to be careful not to mix the two.) I haven't had time to really dig into those sources myself, and won't be able to get past any paywall anyhow, but from what I heard here they don't sound nearly good enough if they have that many issues. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's complicated by the facts that this person's career is publicly and fairly well documented under xyr actual name, and is continuing in parallel. The Berliner Zeitung piece links to a YouTube music channel where the artist is releasing songs in xyr own name concurrently with the horse persona. Special:Diff/1198198632 requested that the artist's two projects not be connected, notice. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Edelman

I am writing to express concerns regarding the editing behavior of user Thedrdonna, particularly related to the addition of contentious content without proper sourcing in potential violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy.

After I removed contentious content and explained my actions on Edelman's Talk page, Thedrdonna has repeatedly attempted to bring back information to the page, relying heavily on a single source from HuffPost's article. It's important to note that, as per the 2020 Request for Comments (RfC), there is no consensus on HuffPost's reliability for political topics due to its perceived bias in US politics, and its reliability in international politics remains undetermined (WP:HUFF). This lack of consensus makes the HuffPost an unreliable source for contentious political content on Wikipedia, especially in the delicate context of BLP articles. Please, check the Edelman's Talk page for more details and information.

Then, Thedrdonna added new edits based on the two new sources that didn't meet Wikipedia's requirements. For example, they have not only been based on questionable sources but have also included a misinterpretation of the content to support a biased viewpoint. In particular, Associated Press never mentioned Edelman or his foundation. The ProPublica document, while mentioning several organizations, was used without journalistic analysis or secondary sourcing, and the focus on the Do Not Harm organization was unjustifiably singular.

Additionally, Thedrdonna mostly refused discussing the sources and they also have deleted warnings left on their Talk page, which raises concerns about their willingness to engage in constructive dialogue and adhere to Wikipedia's collaborative processes. This action, coupled with the repeated addition of contentious and poorly sourced content, suggests a pattern of editing that could be interpreted as acting in bad faith. The intent seems to be the use of their account to add one specific piece of information at any cost, regardless of Wikipedia's policies and the veracity of the information being added.

Given the fact of the spreading of unsupported negative information and deleting notices on the Talk page, I believe there is also a possibility that Thedrdonna may have a Conflict of Interest (WP:COI) stake in their edits. Their focus on adding negative information without proper sourcing, despite repeated notices and corrections, underlines a disregard for Wikipedia's standards and an apparent pursuit of personal interests over factual accuracy and neutrality.

The current information (diff) added by the editor: [29]

The Foundation characterized its donation to Do No Harm, an organization that opposes gender-affirming care and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in medicine and medical education, as "to provide support to protect healthcare from a radical, divisive, and discriminatory ideology."

Note: no reliable source has been provided to confirm this contentious information where Wikipedia requires two sources.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that the Noticeboard review:

1) The contentious content with no use of the proper sources

2) Provide more protection for the page of Joseph Edelman

3) To check @Thedrdonna's editing behavior, particularly the multiple attempts to introduce contentious content without adherence to Wikipedia's strict sourcing requirements for BLP articles. Llama Tierna (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The information I added includes text pulled directly from the Do No Harm page, regarding their positions on gender-affirming care and diversity. The second half of the sentence does not editorialize or otherwise engage in original research, it directly quotes the primary source, which I have been given to understand is a reasonable use of such a source. While we are discussing "constructive dialogue", Llamatierna has mostly deleted the new information, while simply citing ever-more arcane rules (in some cases, incorrectly) in order to support their deletion. They have also accused me of defamation. Hardly constructive dialogue. Thedrdonna (talk) 23:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you able to provide at least one credible, secondary source that is independent of the subject matter for proper use? This would avoid issues such as personal interpretation, original research, copyright infringement (through direct copying), or reliance on primary sources directly related to the subject, like Do Not Harm or basic tax returns. Remember, Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons (WP:BLP) policy mandates that contentious claims must be supported by two independent and reliable sources, with at least one being secondary. While you appear to have some familiarity with Wikipedia's rules for a relatively new account, you overlook the special considerations for biographies of living persons outlined in Wikipedia's guidelines, which you seem to disregard and violate. Llama Tierna (talk) 19:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

As the initiating poster here specifically sought to draw attention to one editor's efforts, I should note that those criticisms here include such concerns as having deleted warning messages from his talk page. That criticism has not just been here, but also on the talk page of the relevant article and in a WP:THREATENing message on the user's talk page. Per WP:NOTWALLOFSHAME, removing warnings from one's own user page is considered acceptable, so such ongoing criticism on that basis is inappropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@ 164.127.247.207 (talk) 22:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

None of the ProPublica info is DUE as it is entirely primary-sourced and anyway is about the Foundation, not Edelman himself. If we don't have any IRS SIGCOV on this person other than a rather promo piece in Business Insider then we shouldn't have a standalone article on him. JoelleJay (talk) 06:23, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition to the HuffPo piece, the Do No Harm donation has been covered in Pink News, which per WP:PINKNEWS is a generally reliable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, NatGertler, and Morbidthoughts:. The addition of Pink News as a source, which merely references Huffpost—a platform recognized for its political bias in US politics as of 2020—raises questions. It's unclear why we're using a source that effectively "mirrors"a biased one (WP:MIRROR) without contributing new information. Here's the link to the "no consensus" stance on Huffpost: [30] Llama Tierna (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The Pink News piece doesn't merely reference the HuffPo piece, it places some statements in Pink News's own voice (unsurprisingly, as some of the information was quite easily verifiable.) You invoke WP:MIRROR as if it has some impact here, but it does not, as that piece is about mirrors of Wikipedia, which I've seen no claims that the source are. Having a point of view (a "bias") does not eliminate a source from being considered reliable. I see no contention over the truth of the statement that the Foundation gave the money to Do No Harm. Coverage such as the Pink News coverage shows us that interest is WP:DUE. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, and it also gets around the coatrack issue of covering the foundation rather than the person. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@JoelleJay, NatGertler, and Morbidthoughts: Just as a follow-up, Llama Tierna has chosen to continue this discussion here. Thedrdonna (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Jan Tyl

"Molly In 2022, he created a digital persona Molly, who was the face of the advertising campaign of the Lunchmeat festival of electronic music and visual art, which took place in Prague at the turn of September and October 2022. She was able to write, among other things, a short bio of a performer, social media posts, or even texts for the festival's spokesperson.[21]"

This information is misleading, he is not creator of the "face of the advertising campaign". Concept of festival persona, generative AI development and realisation were done by different people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.139.84.216 (talk) 13:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

Richard B. Spencer rose to prominence in the mid 2010s as a far right activist, and our article on him currently states in wikivoice that he is such. However, in 2022, Spencer stated that he has completely reevaluated his beliefs and now identities as a political moderate. [31] Looking at recent podcasts and the like that he has participated in, his change in beliefs appears to be genuine. While obviously we need to heavily cover Spencer's historical far right activism and beliefs, which are the source of his notability, I no longer think it's fair to say them in wikivoice in the lead as if they are current. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'll admit I am uneasy making that change at the moment because it is essentially based on self-serving proclamations from the subject himself. Though covered by a couple of secondary sources, for my money I would want a bit more. But, as ever, I am happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I think saying something like "Spencer rose to prominence as..." would be a good framing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was just coming around to a solution like that myself. No problem with that sort of revision. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Made the change [32]. I think the issue is resolved, at least for the lead. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that sources go as far as the edit made to our article. The Tablet Mag source doesn't really describe him that way, and the source linked in this thread is highly questionable for contentious BLP claims per WP:BUSINESSINSIDER and WP:JEZEBEL. The Jezebel source also mentions that his claims might be self-serving due to financial implications from the Charlottesville lawsuit. I'd hope to see some additional sources and stronger ones, if such coverage exists. In the meantime, since it is a BLP (and white supremacist/white nationalist are some of the most contentious labels we use in articles) erring on the side of caution with our wikivoice descriptions is probably the right call until a more firm consensus/sourcing is given. One part of the edit I'm not so sure on is "By the early 2020s". It is accurate, but given that we're barely sliding into the mid 2020s at this point some more precise language might be needed. If the current year was 2030 or later, I wouldn't question it. Given that June 2022 is closer to the present day than the start of the 2020s, it might be better to describe it as "By 2022". The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Its obvious that regardless of what his actual beliefs are his prominent advocacy for the far right is now in the past and not part of his current activities, which the lead should make clear. Part of the problem is that some people are only covered by the news media for a few years before they fall into relative obscurity (as Spencer largely has), while Wikipedia is obligated to have a current up to date article even if there are few recent sources. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to "hmmm" yet again. I think I am mostly with The Wordsmith here. While I think the agnosticism of "rose to prominence" is appropriate, the "by 2022" line at the end of the lead strikes me as overly emphasized. It is properly couched as "said," but somehow in that placement and with that description, it reads almost like a Wikivoice imprimatur of the statements to me. It is 100% possible this is completely a quirk unique to me, but given the sourcing and self-serving concerns, I would be much happier if it was in the body of the article. Here, in the lead, it seems almost an intentional strong contrast to everything before--which, to me, starts becoming an issue of WP:DUE. But, as ever, reasonable minds may differ on the issue, and this is all just one old guy's opinion. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I like the changes that Hemiauchenia has made in response to this conversation, but I share Dumuzid's concern that coverage of Spencer's ostensible political conversion is still too thin to be WP:DUE for inclusion in the lead. Better to build out a section on this in the article body first and then reevaluate. Generalrelative (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is definitely an improvement, Hemiauchenia. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I;ve changed again to In 2022, Spencer made statements distancing himself from his previous support of white nationalism and the alt right. Hopefully that's enough to address the concerns about the previous sentence being too favourable to Spencer. Would it be more appropriate to add the the "views" section? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Generalrelative that the new wording is better. I would personally rather see it in views and not yet in the lead, but we're definitely in the realm of preference at this point. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Harold E. Puthoff

• Harold E. Puthoff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a concerted effort to turn the Harold E. Puthoff article into an attack article, promoting attacks and removing anything neutral or positive. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Hal Puthoff is known as a credulous supporter of pseudoscience. It is hardly an "attack" to document this with reliable sources. jps (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Zero-point energy is not pseudoscience though. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Removing reliable sources before the section on ZPE can be developed is intentional here. The papers have nothing to do with "extracting energy from". The ZPE stuff is backed (and cited) by several reputable sources. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Puthoff's arguments that the vacuum energy can be extracted to do work are pretty much perpetual motion. A more classic form of pseudoscience there isn't. The ZPE arguments Puthoff made wrt stochastic electrodynamics are also pseudoscientific as they are written in service to such claims. jps (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Professor Gutmann, emeritus professor of inorganic chemistry at the Technical University of Vienna, was a well respected scientist. These publications have nothing to do with extracting energy or perpetual motion machines. That is misdirection. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, are you referring to this pseudophysics blatherskite? [33]. That's just junk science par excellence. Do better. jps (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

You need evidence to support your claim apart from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC).

The sources are noted below. It's not hard to find many and varied independent sources identifying Puthoff's main claims about zero point energy as being motivated reasoning. He seems to think that there are a lot of "unexplained phenomena" that are tied up nice-and-neatly with the zero point energy. This includes everything from remote viewing to anti-gravity devices. jps (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Viktor Gutmann (Q2524269) this one. With all the awards and medals. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that appeal to authority is pretty weak, especially given what we know about Nobel disease. Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does. It doesn't get baptized into real science just because the person advocating for it has stature. jps (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Additinoally, WP:PRIMARY sources written by Puthoff do not deserve exposition in Wikipedia unless they were noticed by others. We require independent notice prior to explaining claims in a published paper. jps (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Professor Gutmann wrote about it. Again, this is targeted to prevent development of the section, before such sources can be added. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a pretty pathetic argument, bordering on WP:PROFRINGE. jps (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

And apparently this article being targeted to make it an attack article are all over Twitter. A significant target. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you're taking marching orders from Twitter [34]. jps (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Lol. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Quantum vacuum fluctuations are a well-known, if not fully understood, effect in fundamental physics. Puthoff's 1987 paper about them was published in Physical Review, the world's most prestigious physics journal and his work has been cited by hundreds of scientists. As anybody who has worked with dispersion forces knows, one can extract energy from the vacuum on a temporary basis, but to repeat the process you have to put it back in again, so you end up with nothing. Nature never gives us a free lunch. I too deplore the attempt to turn the Putoff BIO into an WP:attack page. The matter could be taken to the WP:Physics noticeboard. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC).

• Have you looked at the uses Puthoff has posited for this? His stated motivation for the paper is to extract energy without returning it. jps (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Any editor who says "the paper" is ill-informed. Puthoff has authored five Physical Review papers, primary author of one in D and two in A and co-author of one in E amd one in A. This was brought up on the article talk page in 2017. The argument from (purportedly) the article subject against including Pigliucci's view that this is pseudoscience echoes Xxanthippe above: the subject has been published in Physical Review and so isn't a pseudoscientist.

Alas, that too is ill-informed. I recommend that editors now read Martin Gardner on this, who devoted the entire chapter 6 of ISBN 9780393245035 to this, pointing out that the papers in Physical Review were in the late 1980s and early 1990s, that Puthoff devoted a subsequent decade to researching machines for extracting zero-point energy "all of them failures", and reports that astronomer Steven N. Shore actually addressed this talk page point before Wikipedia existed, pointing out that Puthoff was regularly rejected by The Astrophysical Journal.

This is not the only time that Shore has covered Puthoff, moreover. Back when xe was at Case Western Reserve xe wrote about Targ and Puthoff:

• Shore, Steven N. (Autumn 1984). "Quantum Theory and the Paranormal: The Misuse of Science". The Skeptical Inquirer. 9 (1): 24–35.

In addition to Gardner and Shore, there's also Yam writing at the end of the 1990s about Puthoff's idea of the "zero-point-energy age":

That conceit is not shared by the majority of physicists; some even regard such optimism as pseudoscience that could leech fund from legitimate research. The conventional view is that the energy in the vacuum is minuscule.

— Yam, Philip (December 1997). "Exploiting Zero-Point Energy". Scientific American. Vol. 277, no. 6. pp. 82–85. JSTOR 24996046., p.82

The reality seems to be, Int21h, that Puthoff's claims not to be a pseudoscientist have been met with quite resounding assertions from others that xe is at best a "maverick" and "eccentric" (Gardner's words) or one of the "psientists" (Shore's word) ond is a pseudoscientist even in this, and that the zero-point energy research is "comparable to having research on how the brain works directed by a neuroscientist who believes in phrenology" (Gardner again), from at least 1984 to the early 2000s.

Uncle G (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

All of this should be discussed in the article, not just "debunked" and removed. This is published material. To just remove his works and only include attacks is obvious BLPVIO and the admin corps is on notice. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but unless you plan on taking this to ANI or someplace like that, then the "admin corps" is not on notice. Most of us watching this page are not admins, but we just have a keen interest in BLP policy. What we have here appears to be along the lines of a content dispute, which does involve BLP policy, in as much as BLP applies to NPOV. BLP says we must adhere to NPOV, but leaves the rest to NPOV policy, and that's what this discussion is really about.

That said, it would seem to me that just because someone spends time trying to make some experiment work does not in and of itself mean he's engaging in pseudoscience. By that rationale, then everyone at NASA would be pseudoscientists for searching for life on other planets. There's a difference between pseudoscience and legitimate research into the unknown, and let's face it, what we do know is microscopic compared to what we don't. Even the known-unknowns are small by comparison. Alfred Wegener, for example, was the laughing stock of the scientific community when he proposed the idea of continental drift, although now it's accepted as fact. Now, I'm not very familiar with this subject or his work, but it seems to me that what you all have to work out is a matter of weight and balance, and admins rarely get involved in those unless someone starts behaving badly. Zaereth (talk) 18:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, thank you. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 19:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

No offense intended. It's just, half the battle is just picking the right field. Likewise, half of formulating a good argument is picking the right premise, so if you look at this as an an NPOV issue rather than simply just a BLP one, I think you would have much firmer ground to stand on. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Rather than rely on the opinions of Wikipedia editors, it is better to look at the reactions of Puthoff's peers. In his GS listing of citations [35] Puthoff has garnered the following cites {358,355,356,202,333,133,211,154,123,76,73,32,46,41,14,25,19,19,18,16,12,700,9,9,5,6,37,6,4,2,48,2,46,3,45,48,28,..}. Ten papers with over 100 cites is a number that many physicists would be happy with. I see three types of publication: the first is mainstream work that has received mainstream approval, the second is more speculative physics, like his work on vacuum fluctuations that has prompted interest but no consensus of approval (theorists propose unsuccessful theories all the time, but that does not mean they are fringe) the third is the way-out fringe work like that on ESP. It looks as if the higher cited papers are to his mainstream work, the lower cited ones to his less conventional work. Unlike some people who have worked in unconventional areas, Puthoff has a strong mainstream background. From my experience of taking part in some thousand AfDs of researchers and scholars (I was right 91% of the time in my last AfDs) I would say that if the Puthoff BIO ever came to AfD it would be kept on the basis of his achievements as a mainstream physicist. If it were judged on his work in fringe areas (and nothing else) I think it would be less likely to be kept. Therefore, there has to be a balance made in his BIO in describing his mainstream and non-mainstream work. Xxanthippe (talk).

It looks as if the higher cited papers are to his mainstream work, the lower cited ones to his less conventional work. I don't think this is true. The paper with largest number of citation is 365: Mind Reach: Scientists look at psychic abilities. Another paper with 333 citation is on remote viewing: A perceptual channel for information transfer over kilometer distances: Historical perspective and recent research. A paper with 123 citations is CIA-initiated remote viewing at Stanford Research Institute. That's three of his ten works with over 100 citations. jps (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Róbert Cey-Bert

At one of the village pumps I found this: "Róbert Cey-Bert is a fraudster[edit] Latest comment: 13 hours ago1 comment1 person in discussion Róbert Cey-Bert's work and activities are not verified by any independent source or scientific forum, the events of his life are mostly based on his narrative, for which there is no direct evidence. Hungarian Wikipedia has therefore already deleted his article. More here in hungarian: Szélhámos az 1956-os érdemeiért tisztikereszttel kitüntetett Cey-Bert Róbert Az ember, aki mindenütt ott volt: a Magyarságkutató Intézet főtanácsadójának esete a tényellenőrzéssel I recommend changing or deleting the article due to the above information. Vander (talk) 9:36 pm, Yesterday (UTC+0)Reply"

On hu.wiki Robert Cey-Bert[edit]( article • edit article • discussion • edit discussion • list • edit worksheet • story • links • log • dellog • monitor • delete • rename • infringer • protect • close • WP:AK ) This is a discussion of a deletion proposal . The goal is not necessarily to delete the page, but – if possible – to correct the errors. Please, if you comment, avoid faulty reasoning and keep in mind the relevant rules of Wikipedia ( namely , what does not belong in Wikipedia? ). After much deliberation, I am writing this deletion discussion. I debated because the subject of the article obviously fulfills the requirements of notoriety, certainly in the tabloid sense of the word, but we don't have an article about all the tabloid characters, who are in principle notable anyway... My problem with this article is that it is practically impossible to write it in such a way that it contains the pure truth. It is based on Róbert Cey-Bert's own statements, 90% of which turned out to be of dubious credibility and unverifiable, even in the most subtle use of words. If we take out the sections that cannot be verified by an independent source, nothing is left (at most, a bunch of references asking for sources, if we don't delete them from the article, but that's not even better). There is a thorough, very rich, verifiably sourced article about Cey-Bert's frauds [1] , but if we build the article entirely on this article and the sources in it, we will have an unpleasant, sad article about an eavesdropping uncle, which is not good either, if, in my opinion, the article structured in this way would be closest to the actual truth. Of course, it can also be neutral, include both sides, this would probably be the ugliest solution: Cey-Bert's statements at the top, why the statement is not true at the bottom - this is unworthy of a lexicon. My opinion is to push the issue and let the article go. The wiki will not be less if there is no article about a bigoted uncle. Viröngy discussion 17 August 2022, 01:41 (CEST) [ reply ]

Tobe an article candidate , then if it is important to someone, you can improve it. Even sources that seem independent at first glance are not. For example, merve.hu listed in note 4 lists Zita Tóth as the author, but switches to first person singular at the beginning of the biography ("my father was a mill owner", "my family's ancestors"). CBR talks about itself in number 5, and also in number 6. The role he played in 1956 is also interestingly sourced: according to the text of the article, "he joined the Corvin insurgents led by Gergely Pongrátz", according to the note accompanying the claim, "Gergely Pongrátz believed Cey-Bert that he fought with him during the Corvin..." and "Cey-Bert was able to convince Gergelly Pongrátz and Mária Wittner that he fought during Corvin in 1956." This should not remain among the articles, we will only discredit the encyclopedia with it. – Hkoala August 17, 2022 at 09:18 (CEST) [ reply ]

I support Hkoala's suggestion. -  Pagony message 17 August 2022, 10:58 (CEST) Don't be angry, it's getting worse. We pack "sources" here and there, passages of text, but we always conclude that the source is itself. to be deleted -  Pagony message 17 August 2022, 21:47 (CEST) [ reply ]  
I support it , making it a candidate article is also a perfect solution, the main thing is that it doesn't look indecent in the article namespace. Viröngy discussion 17 August 2022, 11:27 (CEST) [ reply ]
to be deleted As a biographical article, I think it is unsalvageable and irreparable. You can add a refutation next to almost all of your claims, and if you delete them, essentially nothing is left. The article might be interesting as a phenomenon (insolence, pseudo-scientific activity, plus how the unsuspecting part of the media makes a star out of such bigots), but that's not what it's about. (I would only add that if there really were as many people during the Corvin at that time as there are today who are trying to take advantage of it, then the 56 insurgents would still be holding their own.) Today I took the trouble and read through the recently published writings, including the writing published on researchgate. So, based on these, this entry should not survive in any form on the Hungarian Wikipedia. –  VargaThe discussion August 17, 2022 at 8:37 PM (CEST) 

Both were created by User:Fatongu. Doug Weller talk 11:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• It's not as bad as it at first appears. For starters, the 2022 source that debunks a lot of the four decades of autobiography printed in the Hungarian press uncritically is already used in the article. By Fatongu. Added in Special:Diff/1167304303 back in 2023. There's a lot to check there against the debunking, though, that was there before the debunking came out and is still in the article now. A quick look doesn't indicate an easy place to start, and to unpick the stuff sourced to uncritical press. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Uncle G It looks pretty tricky. We need someone who can read Hungarian for a start. Doug Weller talk 21:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

  I know here is a DeepL Translator, I think this could also be used. Vander (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

• Possibly to some extent. I've used google translate, and it can help sort of give me the gist of what is being said. It tends to work much better the closer a language is to English. For example, they translate French, Norwegian, and Swedish rather well, because those are what English is primarily made of, (although I find I can translate those much better myself just from the etymology). German and other Eastern European languages become much harder to translate meaningfully, and when you get into Asian languages they can become downright incoherent. The problem is they translate things very literally, and most languages are far more figurative than literal. Idioms and figures of speech, and even syntax, can come off wrong or even very confusing through machine translation. Semantic translation works much better, by translating the meaning rather than word for word, but machines just can't pull that off, so it's always best to have someone who actually speaks the language assess sources. There are some telltale signs of a good/bad source that are universal across languages, such as, are they using expository style? Do they avoid pushing their opinions? Etc... Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Like people at the Hungarian AfD [36] also have concerns about this article. I've read the document in google translated form and it appears to be credible, but as a WP:BLPSPS it is alas unusable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I do read a little Hungarian (perhaps on a 2nd grade level; I can at least usually check the machine translation), and have some knowledge and/or opinions about reliability of Hungarian news media. I notice that Cey-Bert has been significantly covered by Magyar Nemzet, mainly as an author [37][38][39][40]. Magyar Nemzet at one time was perhaps the Hungarian equivalent of the Wall Street Journal; nowadays it is overly associated with the Orban government, and one should take it with more than a grain of salt. It is very plausible, for example, that the government would like to push the narrative of a 1956 freedom fighter, facts be d*mned. I don't have much Wikipedia time this week, but will try to check in from time to time, and am happy to try to comment on sources. I agree that the article should be trimmed with a chainsaw. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Adem Somyurek

An editor with 25 contributions, the majority of which are on Adem Somyurek (an Australian ex-Labor party politician) and the remainder of which are on a couple of British Labour party politicians, has been editing the subject to introduce WP:BLP violations and puffery. Can I get the eyes of some experienced editors on the article please. TarnishedPath^talk 03:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

It is clearly a problem. I'll go through their edits to check if any are valid, as I don't know anything about the subject, but so far it looks ugly. - Bilby (talk) 23:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bilby, thanks for the revdel to remove BLP violations. TarnishedPath^talk 02:20, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Victim blaming seems to me to be a clear BLP violation worth revdel. - Bilby (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Bilby, the diff at Special:Diff/1205429953 contains the same material. TarnishedPath^talk 04:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Very sorry for missing that. I've revdel'ed it as well. I've given the editor a COI warning, and I saw that you had said everything that needed to be said. If there is any sign of this continuing I'm ok with giving an indef. - Bilby (talk) 08:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully they discontinue from their current trajectory. TarnishedPath^talk 08:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Unflattering subject matter not fully confirmed

I am working on User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Gary Bossert, which may even be in article space by the time you respond. I am in user sandbox space because his notability seemed questionable to me as I approached the subject. I feel confident that he would survive a challenge now. I intend to move him to main space in the near future. I am here because I have discovered content that I can not confirm is him (see User_talk:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Gary_Bossert#Possibly_a_basketball_coach). Bossert is a basketball player whose college career ended in 1987. He played high school and college basketball in the Buffalo–Niagara Falls Metropolitan Area. I have found content that shows a 1989-91 high school basketball coach tenure in the Watertown, New York area by a Gary Bossert. I don't see anything describing the coach as this basketball player that I know. However, it would be common for a college basketball player to try to be a professional basketball player and if he is not satisfied with his trajectory in this regard to go into coaching starting as a high school coach, college assistant, or college athletic admin staffer. So the chronolgy meshes well. The coach Bossert seems to have ended his career in an unbecoming manner getting called for 2 technical fouls and forfeiting an end-of-season playoff game. There is no subsequent mention of him as a coach. Should I assume he is the coach.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Before even getting to the question of whether it is the same person, is the information really WP:DUE? You say you found 'content,' but is that in a reliable source and one important enough that it means people took notice? It's certainly possible that it is due for inclusion, but as you describe it here, I confess I am a bit skeptical. That said, I am sure you have a better idea than I do! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I assume the Watertown Daily Times is a RS because it is a major newspaper of a non-trivial municipality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

He wasn't the only athlete by that name of that era; I find, for example, reports of a track-and-field competitor by that name in Pennsylvania. I'm not saying that the coach is not the same guy as the NCAA record holder; I am saying that the matching name is not sufficient information for inclusion, given that the names involved aren't that rare. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

So I totally leave out any mention of a Watertown area 1989-91 coach Gary Bossert?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, barring some other source arising providing a more concrete connection. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Don't build the Frankenstein for guidance. —Bagumba (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

• Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolved

I sent Buffalo & Erie County Public Library a long list of questions about things like 1. Who his father is 2. Whether he was the point guard on the 1982 17&U Empire State Games West New York team with Curtis Aiken that upset New York City 3. How many siblings he had 4. Where he might have transferred from 5. Post collegiate career info.

among the things they sent back were this link, which provides confirmation-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

That should do it! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ronn Owens

I am one one Ronn Owens's daughters. I have been the target of a smear campaign in which internet trolls have repeatedly gone onto my father's Wikipedia page and tried to my name and existence from his page, and only list my sister as his daughter. This article confirms the fact that Ronn Owens has two daughters, Sarah and Laura. I would appreciate it if you would please lock his page so that cyber trolls are not allowed to change it from this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.144.204 (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Since there is now a source showing Owens has two daughters, that matter is resolved. As far as the names of the daughters, names of children are normally omitted unless they are themselves notable people. —C.Fred (talk) 23:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Trivium (band) – a former member may have transitioned gender

• Trivium (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Trivium band members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Autumn Offering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Galamity33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Joe Capricorn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here is the status quo ante: The Trivium (band) article lists "George Moore" among the former members of the band.

On 8 February, Galamity33 created an account. They have held themselves out as the former band member. Their only edits have been to change the name of said band member to "galamity" in the articles related to the band and the communicate with various users about the issues at their respective user talk pages (and their own talk page).

The user has been repeatedly requested to provide independent reliable sources. The only sources they have provided are:

• A YouTube video on their channel (which has only one follower) showing their legal documents. This creates the usual WP:BLPPRIMARY concerns about using legal documents for a source.
• An entry on themselves at metal-archives.com, which accepts submissions from users.

I conducted a Google search for "galamity" and got no hits on the name.

There are two issues I see here.

1. Should we be changing the individual's name in the absence of independent sources covering the name change by the former band member?
2. Even if we can verify the change of name, how much mention of their former name must remain in the Trivium articles, given that they were known by their own name during the time they were notable?

The user has repeatedly edited the articles listed above, and I have indefinitely partially blocked them from the two named articles on the grounds of edit warring (with COI and BLP(!) as supporting reasons for the block). I look for wider input on how to address the situation, since if this isn't the first time we will have a situation like this arise, I doubt it will be the last. —C.Fred (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The person on youtube appears to be the same as the tiktok user _galamity and, judging by the bio (though I cannot see anything further as I don't use twitter) @_galamity on twitter. Not sure how much that helps confirm/deny their identity as the former Trivium member; someone who has twitter and tiktok accounts may be able to find out more. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there even a reliable source for the existing name? I couldn’t see a reference. Perhaps it would be best to remove it, or even remove all the unsourced former band members, changing that section to list only “notable former band members”, which as it stands would just be the members with their own articles (assuming those articles in turn are deemed notable). Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

At face value, the documents shared via Youtube look convincing but unusable for our own purposes. I went out and did a check to try to find something we can use, but I'm coming up empty. Moore has credits from 1999-2006, but nothing at all after that point. Galamity has a verified Spotify artist page, with no bio and only one song, published in 2021. Soundcloud has nothing before 2022. The Twitter/X account was created in 2021. There's essentially no record of Moore after 2006 and no record of Galamity before 2021. I can't find any biographical information on Moore either to try and establish a link. Obviously we need to be sensitive to a request like this, and the documents seem to prove (again, unsuitable for BLP purposes) that Galamity was previously named George Moore. I'm having trouble finding anything even halfway legitimate that can link Galamity to being the same George Moore that used to be in Trivium, as opposed to a different person named George Moore. I'm not sure what the right thing to do in this situation is, to rule out the possibility of an impersonator. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

In the absence of verifying information in reliable third-party sources, nothing should be changed. GiantSnowman 22:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

NB they also appear to have edited as Galamity3 (talk · contribs), and there's possible meat/sock puppets at TheyThemcausingMayhem (talk · contribs) and 72.70.189.67 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). GiantSnowman 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It's unfortunate if they really have transitioned but WP:V is policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

i am offended and saddened that any of you are actually questioning the legitamicy of my gender transition. however "meat/sock puppets" is friggin hilarious. Expect this clown show to be referenced in an upcoming song release that im sure you all will refuse to acknowledge as well. Galamity33 (talk) 22:17, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, the legitimacy of the transition of User:Galamity33 is not questioned. What is questioned is the verifiability of whether that user is the same person listed as a former band member—and now whether said member was anything more than a touring member. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Do the sources for a later life transition fall under WP:BLPSELFPUB? I don't think that mentioning a gender transition is unduly self-serving, for instance. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think they would if they weren't birth certificates and such. There's a very good reason we don't use such documents, and that's out of concern for our subjects rather than our readers in this case. Birth certificates can be forged or stolen, and really that's about all one needs to assumes another's identity. Youtube is not considered a reliable source, because so much of what you see has been edited or faked. There's often no way to tell. Then we have to worry about scammers and people just pulling some kind of hoax. (Yes, that does happen.) A self-published source should be at least verifiable that it really belongs to the subject in question. Now, there are ways to do that, because people have before (just don't ask me how because I'm as computer illiterate as they come). Better still, do some newspaper interviews or something like that, where we'd then have a reliable source verify the facts in question. Newspapers and magazines are always looking for stuff to fill their pages. There are a multitude of different ways to achieve that goal. The thing is, we have these BLP rules to protect our subjects from harm, and we need to be very sure we are getting our info from sources we can rely on. Zaereth (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

• There was an issue like this on Elisa Rae Shupe, where a notable detransitioner re-transitioned and contacted us asking that the article be fixed; but there wasn't yet any WP:RS sourcing. As I recall, what we did initially was remove anything poorly-sourced from the article, which at least made it less stridently wrong; looking over the history someone updated the pronouns shortly afterwards, using a blog source, which was probably technically insufficient due to the lack of clear verifiability but nobody objected. Eventually RS sources did appear but it took some time. It's a complex situation because unfortunately I don't think we can make general exceptions to WP:V - even aside from the fact that it's core policy, creating a general exception would invite malicious actors to use it for hoaxes. That said, if editors are completely convinced in an individual situation and absolutely nobody objects, it's a reasonable WP:IAR case; at least in the case of Shupe it seems to have worked out. And additionally, a blog can be used for basic biographical details via WP:ABOUTSELF if there's no reasonable doubts as to its veracity - if for whatever reason every editor is confident that a particular blog really is the user in question, we can probably use it in cases like this. Anyway, removing Moore's name from the page entirely for now due to lack of any sources covering them is probably the right call and is similar to the initial steps we took for Shupe - I suspect that that will usually be the case when someone's transition isn't covered, ie. they were probably marginally notable to begin with and closer inspection will find that we probably shouldn't have been saying so much about them in the first place. It may not be what the subject always wants but it at least is in line with the WP:BLP requirement to minimize the risk of harm, and people can then do things like set up Google News alerts for further coverage in case it ever appears. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but where are the sources that show someone named George Moore was ever even in the band? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, my search didn't really turn up anything for this that isn't WP:UGC. Older versions of List of Trivium band members list Moore under "Touring" rather than "Former Members", with a reference to the book Trivium - The Mark of Perseverance supporting the text Moore briefly performed as a second guitarist for Trivium before Beaulieu's addition. This was changed in January 2022. I don't have access to that book to confirm, but if any Trivium fans have the Ember to Inferno album then the liner notes might verify one way or the other. Otherwise, removing the entry might be the best option if we're unable to verify that Moore was actually a member of the band. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with just removing the name entirely. It's the easiest solution, given that they were only briefly with the band. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to note that this disruption is also occurring at The Autumn Offering band article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

i was in the band ... it was published in a book. i have a copy. please dont remove a highlight of my life from history. ive literally been on this page for 20 years people. Galamity33 (talk) 02:15, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What I suggest you do is contact various news sources to try and do an interview or otherwise get them to cover you; they don't have to be particularly high-quality for us to cite basic biographical details to them, just good enough to pass WP:V. That would give us enough sourcing to include you and mention it. Wikipedia covers what reliable sources say, so if you want to correct something about the record of your life and reliable sources haven't covered it yet, the solution is to try and get one of them to do so. --Aquillion (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

@Galamity33 If you were in the band, you were in the band. Whether or not Wikipedia says so won't change that. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

here is the book that chronicles their tenure with the group

"Trivium: The Mark of Perserance"

top link on www.galamity.com

check page 48 where it quotes Matt Heafy telling them they are "in" the band 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:4C69:7BD8:E4A7:21A2 (talk) 12:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Joe Capricorn (talk · contribs) now meat puppet on this. GiantSnowman 18:30, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

link to book chronicling George Moore as a member now posted on www.galamity.com 🤘 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

That is not a valid source. GiantSnowman 18:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

it was valid for the past 20 years ... explain how a widely distributed and available book you can read online is not valid 2603:9001:5FF0:8CB0:78E8:E3CC:C46B:4F44 (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Searching for their name in the book through google books confirms they were in the band. Extremely simple to do. Someone coming with a request to have their transition recognized on wikipedia, and being met with "well it'd be easier for us if we just erased you from the page" is kind of ridiculous. Parabolist (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Timothy Gallaudet

Timothy Gallaudet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have tagged this article as being overly detailed. A number of sources used look questionable for the contentions being made and I think, generally, a culling and summarizing would work better. Thought to post here in case there were experts who knew how to handle this sort of thing.

jps (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)