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.

Lucas Kunce

Repeated attempts to edit the article to overemphasize and sensationalize a recent shooting incident, violating WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. While the incident is appropriately covered in its own section with reliable sources, editors keep trying to characterize Kunce as being "best known" for this single event, which appears to be harassment through repeated undue emphasis of negative content. Request review and possible protection if problematic editing continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophilian (talk • contribs) 15:28, October 27, 2024 (UTC)

Paul Weller

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

---

someone snuck in Paul is a jew hater. Not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.81.34 (talk • contribs)

That was WP:VANDALISM and it has been removed. Polygnotus (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted all the relevent revisions. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Isaac Mass

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

---

There is no source other than the website of the law firm, I don't think it qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.207.254 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mass. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Allan Lichtman and The Keys to the White House

My mistake -- I started this thread on the Talk page instead of here. Moving it. Sorry! JamesMLane t c 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Allan Lichtman is a professor who’s received considerable media attention for his formulation and application of The Keys to the White House, a method for predicting U.S. presidential elections. There is dispute about whether his prediction of a Trump win in 2016 was correct. Lichtman says he correctly predicted the Electoral College winner, but some critics say he was predicting the winner of the popular vote, which Trump lost.

Repeated edits to the Keys article have taken one side of this dispute, asserting, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Lichtman was wrong (violating WP:NPOV). What's more, these edits clearly impute dishonesty to him. (From the version current as I write: "Lichtman...claims that in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College,[43] but this claim is not supported by his books and papers from 2016, which explicitly stated that the keys predict the popular vote.") I did a major rewrite that presented both sides of the controversy without endorsing either, and made other changes. It was reverted five minutes later.

The basic problem is that there are three SPAs that are fervently hostile to Lichtman. User:Apprentice57 had one edit in 2007 and one in 2019, then beginning in June 2024 made numerous edits, all of them related to these two articles. User:Tomcleontis and User:Caraturane began editing in June 2024 and have primarily edited these two articles and their Talk pages. All three were pushing a then-recent blog post critical of Lichtman, which they wanted to cite.

My repeated explanations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP got nowhere, so I had to start an RfC. Only one experienced editor, User:Classicfilms, responded. She agreed that BLP applied and that my version was better. Another experienced and previously uninvolved editor, User:LittleJerry, did not join the RfC, but made this edit to remove some of the POV. Apprentice57 reverted. LittleJerry restored his correction, commenting that the POV violation was obvious. This time it was Caraturane who restored the violation.

The three SPAs dismiss the RfC because, according to one of them, a "majority" wanted to keep the attacks on Lichtman. When I pointed out that they were accusing a living person of making a false statement, the response was: "For the record, Lichtman is not being accused of making false statements. He has reportedly, on multiple occasions, made false statements." This blatant BLP violation is defended on the grounds that "[a] strict BLP application to the entire page seems unwarranted."

I'm not trying to suppress the criticism. My NPOV version has a whole section presenting both sides of the controversy without adopting either. Would some other editors knowledgeable about WP:BLP please weigh in? Thanks! JamesMLane t c 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We have all engaged in good faith to try to find compromises here, and I refer to the Talk page at large for a more thorough discusion of this, which I also ask independent editors to review. We've also cited numerous independent sources which dug into this discrepancy (not just single lines about his record, but about the dispute itself) and reached the conclusion that he has been inconsistent or dishonest about it:

https://www.imediaethics.org/did-professor-allan-lichtman-correctly-predict-the-winner-of-the-2016-presidential-election-his-own-book-says-no/

https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/

Tomcleontis (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As Tomcleontis says, he and his allies have reached a conclusion, and they want their conclusion (that Lichtman "has been inconsistent or dishonest") to be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

That's not a rebuttal; it's a confession. JamesMLane t c 18:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't me or "my allies"... this is the reporting of independent sources, which I encourage you to read and rely upon. Time and time again JamesMLane has suggested we have all engaged in bad faith just because we push back against his unilateral changes and cite actual sources. This is despite my own attempts to try to find good faith compromises concerning wording, sourcing, etc. but it's really out of control how tooth and nail this has become because of the acts of said editor. Several editors all reached these same neutral conclusions relying on these sources (these are not our own conclusions, other than the plain reading arugment, which is clear), which have reported on this dispute in more depth than any of us could. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the first two sources cited above by Tomcleontis (I cannot access the Atlantic article), I'm not sure how much weight should be given to them, but I think the issue boils down to this quote from the first one: "The fact is, Lichtman’s model did not predict that Trump would win the presidency. It really predicted that Trump would win the popular vote. It’s an inconvenient fact that Lichtman will not acknowledge, as numerous media stories tout his unblemished record." If this is the case, that most media outlets report that he was correct in his 2016 prediction, then that is what should be reported. Maybe there should also be an additional sentence or note mentioning that there have been challenges to the 2016 prediction based on this distinction between winning the election (which is determined by the electoral college) and winning the popular vote, but it seems like even these sources admit that is not the widely-held view of most reliable sources. The edits adding in words like "claims" do not seem appropriate. – notwally (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Was able to get a link to Atlantic that should work, sorry I didn't even think of that. So I think a key part of this problem is the sources that actually report on the discrepancy all come down on the side of 2016 being wrong, but those that only catch the headline don't really say much more and just add a sentence. What is undeniable is that Lichtman's own book and paper from 2016 (including before and after his September 23 prediction) said the system not just only predicted the popular vote but did not predict the Electoral College, this is a point many of the editors have relied upon is that any plain reading makes a pretty clear case. Tomcleontis (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, notwally, you've identified the crux of the dispute. There are indeed sources criticizing Lichtman for an allegedly wrong 2016 prediction (based on the popular vote versus electoral vote issue). In my rewrite, I cited the most prominent of them, Nate Silver. He's not unbiased -- he and Lichtman have been trading barbs online for years -- but he's a notable person in the field of election prediction. I also linked to the sources relied on by Lichtman's critics, namely writings by Lichtman referring to the popular vote. I also quoted Lichtman's response (he had switched to predicting electoral votes), as well as the independent media that credit him with a correct prediction. That, IMO, is the WP:NPOV way.

  If Tomcleontis really thinks that there's "a pretty clear case" in favor of his opinion, then there's no need to spoonfeed it to the readers. We just explain both sides and let the readers draw their own conclusions. JamesMLane t c 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would argue that the critics all identified in the current system are relevant, or at least more thorough than Nate Silver, given a number of them (particularly the Postrider critics, who are not so much critics as reporters on this) are noted as the named Lichtman critics in numerous articles. Julia Azari is also a prominent scholar on these issues and she is cited. The iMediaEthics source is also useful in terms of providing context (though again, another source that is not so much critics, as it is reporting). The Newsweek and Atlantic sources cite many of these critics as well but are obviously the most prestigious sources to comment on this, though I note the NY Post does as well. But yes, I'd love to have some neutral editors review. Tomcleontis (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comparing the prior version [1] that OP posted and their proposed version [2], I think the proposed version seems far more neutral and informative, particularly the second paragraph of the lead and the "Reception" section, which I believe are the two largest points of contention. – notwally (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can more comprehensively reply later, but a related issue to all this is that JamesMLane will initiate one conflict resolution process, for instance a RfC on the current 13 keys page, and then when it doesn't go their way they'll initiate another one.

This is not proper. The RfC indicated that most want the article to stay the way it was. We can continue to let people weigh in and perhaps that will change, but that's how it is currently. We already addressed the issue of BLP within. You don't get to relitigate the issue in hopes of a better result by rerolling the dice. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, you claim "majority" because three SPAs continue to fight against Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean the RfC went against me. JamesMLane t c 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is ongoing, and currently has found no consensus. The three "SPA"s are us who have been maintaining the page in question and part of the discussion that lead to consensus and to the article in its current form recently. That's another process you didn't like the result of and relitigated with the RfC in the first place.

You created the RfC, which I appreciate but it puts some legitimacy to that process in the first place. See it through to the end, wait some time, and *then* wait to reintroduce the issue.

If you want this to lead to admin intervention/arbitration, this is the way we're headed. I don't recognize this Noticeboard discussion as legitimate. Apprentice57 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire framing of this is inherently unfair. It is not that "critics" are saying he was wrong in 2016, it is that reporters are saying he is wrong. It is that his own work says he was wrong. And there has been a pattern of Lichtman's own bad faith efforts: his wife editing the page, him making explicit calls on his live streams to remove critical material, and calling anyone who has ever reported on his inconsistencies (including third party journalists) unethical or liars.

I also strongly resent this notion that any of us are fervently hostile to anyone, we've all tried to work in good faith to find consensus with JamesMLane, which seems to result in a unilateral act or a persistent resort to an RFC or other noticeboard request. This is despite attempts by Tomcleontis to find compromise, my own good faith efforts to find compromise wording, and repeated pleas by many involved to take a step back for some time to let tensions simmer down. Caraturane (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The amount of space dedicated to retelling (in a biased fashion) the inside baseball of the past arguments on those talk pages rather than BLP itself I hope makes evident to onlookers isn't actually about whether the page adheres to BLP requirements or not. The editor in question wants backup on implementing their version of the article when they failed to get it in the *ongoing* RfC (4-2 against their changes, at time of writing).

On the meta issues, I won't respond comprehensively so as to ratify this as the proper venue for this sort of thing (it isn't). I'll only say that coming to a contrary position on whether the page constitutes a violation of NPOV/BLP isn't actionable. We (the editors JamesMLane complains about) have all been part of the original discussions and consensus that led to those edits in the first place, and have repeatedly tried to find common ground with them on this. We will continue to do so.

Important context is also that we have our guards up for editing the article in the way they ask to do so, as it would move the page to one explicitly desired by Lichtman. He has personally attacked his page and the 13 keys page because they do not recognize his 2016 call as correct. One of his interviewers even tweeted at Jimmy Wales himself about this about getting the page edited. Later, a new user with the same name as his wife attempted to edit the page themself. Shortly after that last incident, JamesMLane began their aggressive pattern of behavior to remove the reporting (not criticism) Lichtman objected to.

On the issue of BLP (assuming it applies here for sake of discussion, which it does for Lichtman's own page but is not immediately obvious for the 13 keys page), I think this may be an unusual situation for editors here to come across. The dispute at hand is whether the facts are so clear that we can recognize that Lichtman's model was wrong in 2016 (as wikipedia does not "both sides" issues to present a false balance: see how it covers issues like climate change (I am not comparing this to Climate Change, I just need a clear inarguable parallel)). This is a proverbial high bar, but I cannot see how we *don't* clear that: Lichtman went on record on the eve of the 2016 election in a paper to say his model (still) predicted the popular vote: "As a national system, the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes." Lichtman used similar language about this consistently until after the 2016 election. The journalists at the postrider point this out very well https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/ (this piece is mostly citing and quoting Lichtman's own record, and I use it just for that limited purpose here), later repeated by the Atlantic et al. Lichtman called the popular vote for Trump in that same paper, and then Trump went on to lose the popular vote.

I think the focus on media sources tends to miss the forest from the trees when we have such a smoking gun from the author himself. Nevertheless, we have previously pointed out that the sources that tend to recognize him calling 2016 correctly tend to be opinion articles with less editorial oversight, or use it as an introduction to his credentials and then dedicate the vast majority of the article to his model regarding 2024. The postrider, the Atlantic, others cited above, etc. are the only pieces I'm aware of that look into his record and they ratify the incorrect call that the wiki page currently recognizes. If there are media sources we are missing, especially those that interrogate his record and come to a contrary conclusion, then I welcome those coming to light.

In short, BLP requires editors to recognize when there is a dispute and to present all sides of said dispute. But there did not seem to be a dispute from Lichtman on this point until after the 2016 election (which is irrelevant when it comes to predictions, and when he has a perverse incentive to not recall his history accurately) and there does not seem to be a dispute from current media sources interrogating his record.

There are always other ways to make the article better, James and another editor here have pointed out that "claim" is problematic language and not suggested by the Manual-of-Style. This is something I would take no issue to amending to less charged language. I would have already made an edit if not for the section being under discussion in the RfC. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your characterization of the RfC is incorrect. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the role of this Noticeboard is incorrect. Your touting of your prior role seems to disregard WP:OWN. Your personal attacks on Lichtman are utterly irrelevant to the question of what the article should say. As for the WP:NPOV violation, you continue to tout one side of the controversy -- a side that we can and should report, as my neutral version does, without our needing to take a position. If, as you contend, there is no dispute, then any reasonable person reading my neutral version will see where the preponderance of the evidence is, right? JamesMLane t c 02:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect how? Are you claiming there is consensus reached by the RfC? Are you disputing that there are 4 top level "support version 1" and only two "support version 2" at the time of writing? I tout no prior role, only prior consensus you seek to undermine because you didn't participate and disagree with it. And there are no personal attacks on Lichtman, I think you may be taking anything that doesn't prop up his record as insulting on his behalf, for some reason.

Wikipedia does not both sides issues when the facts are clear. Argue against that on the merits or present your own sources with investigation of his history to counter it. We have been through this over and over again, and you don't get to be the gatekeepers on this. Apprentice57 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

JamesMLane t c 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

BLPSPS elsewhere

Please see:

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#GLAAD & anti-LGBT groups – a discussion about whether we can use certain material about public figures/third-parties, or if the organization's website falls under WP:BLPSPS.
• Wikipedia talk:Verifiability#SPS definition – a discussion about whether an organization's website is really self-published (i.e., written by 'the org' and posted online by 'the org') or if it might be traditionally published (e.g., if it is written by one staff member and posted online by a different staff member).

These discussions could have wide-ranging implications for not just advocacy groups, but also political and corporate websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations AfD

Consider sharing your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Combs sexual misconduct allegations. Thanks Ratnahastin (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

BLPCRIME and article that focuses on non-public figure not charged but not convicted of a crime

The article Phillips family disappearances seems like a complete WP:BLPCRIME violation to me but I don't know how to address it short of deleting the article itself. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The article could probably do with a trim (readers do not need to know about every single alleged robbery or vehicle theft) but the notability of the events is indisputable and most of the sources look reliable (Stuff, RNZ, Newshub, the Herald, etc.) Phillips' not having been convicted of a crime would hold more water had he not absconded while on bail leading to a warrant being issue for his arrest. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with it being notable which is why I haven't proposed AfD, but it does go against what BLPCRIME states: For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd definitely rephrase parts like New Zealand Police believe... we're writing an encyclopedia, not a news article. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking BLPCRIME only says we must "seriously consider" not including such material; there is leeway for editors to judge that we should include the material even though it suggests a non-public figure committed a crime.

Given that this is an article about a man taking his children in a custody dispute and disappearing when he's meant to be in court to answer criminal charges, I'm not sure it's possible to write a meaningful version of the article which doesn't at least suggest the possibility that he's committed crimes. Maybe if this were cut down to a three sentence stub... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

This is where the line between public figure and private citizen begin to blur. A person can become a public figure simply by committing a crime, without even seeking fame. It all depends on how much public interest exists. For example, Charles Manson and his "family" became infamous back in their day, generating tremendous amounts of news coverage, several documentaries, and even some movies. Far worse crimes have been committed that didn't generate hardly any interest, and if it happened in Somewhere, Nebraska, he likely would've disappeared into the aether of history. But it didn't, it happened in Beverly Hills so it garnered a huge amount of public interest.

Who knows why some criminals achieve celebrity status, but it's probably the same reason some musicians and actors do while most don't, but it's the risk everyone takes when committing a crime. Seeking fame doesn't automatically make one a public figure, and avoiding fame doesn't guarantee it won't.

Other examples include Mary Kay Letourneau and Casey Anthony. In Anthony's case, she was found innocent, but at one point the case had received so much coverage she was a household name; not notable enough to have her own article but enough to have her name redirected to the article about the case. The purpose of BLPCRIME is to protect the rights of private citizens, but at some point the case becomes so well known that there is no longer any point in trying to protect their rights to privacy or innocent until proven guilty. In such cases we have an obligation to cover the info as well.

In this case, it looks like there is enough coverage to warrant this article in spite of having no conviction to show for it. However, I don't think the children have committed any crimes and am uncomfortable naming them or having their pictures in the article. Extra care should be taken with children in any article. Zaereth (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I would generally support removing the pictures and name. But I think this case is complicated since it's a high profile disappearance. While there's no suggestion the children committed any crime, the names but especially the photos have become wide spread precisely because they are being actively looked for. Consider other famous cases like Disappearance of Madeleine McCann or Disappearance of Etan Patz where we have photos and the articles are named after the person who disappeared. Yes Etan Patz is now considered resolved but it's still so named because of the fame surrounding the disappearance and the photo which even appeared on milk carton was I'm fairly sure always there even before. Other cases involving the disappearance of minors seem similar e.g. from 2010 to now Disappearance of Mekayla Bali, Disappearance of William Tyrrell, Disappearance of Sky Metalwala, Disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen, Disappearance of Kyron Horman, Disappearance of Rebecca Reusch and Disappearance of Owen Harding all have photos. (Note that McCann and Metalwala even have age progression images.) To be fair, Disappearance of Ayla Reynolds, Disappearance of Timmothy Pitzen and Disappearance of Dulce Maria Alavez do not have photos although still have the article named after the minor. I suspect the lack of photo might have editors uncertain how to handle NFCC as much as anything and/or general unfamiliarity with how they can add images by those involved in the articles. And I'm excluding Disappearance of John Beckenridge and Mike Zhao-Beckenridge, Disappearance of Perry Cohen and Austin Stephanos and Disappearance of Dylan Ehler as in all those cases it seems like the these were quite early on treated as a probable death where the body has simply not been found rather than a person who has possibly been abducted or otherwise might still be out there somewhere. (Although since there is always doubt, I'm fairly sure the photos have been spread a fair amount e.g. I know this is the case for Mike Zhao-Beckenridge which is also a NZ case.) Note that in some of these cases, Etan Patz being an obvious example, the disappeared might be no longer a minor, but I don't think that is the reason we're fine with including the images. While in the headline case we were fairly sure from the outset why the children disappeared, this doesn't change that they're still being actively searched for and since there's no guarantee the father will be with them at all times and in any case it helps with identification the photos of the children are also widely distributed. Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Allegedly an individual of short stature who accompanied a normal-sized individual during an alleged crime was Tom Phillips and one of his daughters.

But I realised this fails NFCC#8, images of living people aren't considered fair use on Wikipedia so the image will have to go for another reason. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean Disappearance of Alessia and Livia Schepp instead of Pitzen in the second instance. Anyway that isn't correct and we have a number of such images e.g. Lucy Letby and Saif al-Adel are examples. The requirement is that free images can plausibly be created. This is generally considered to apply to nearly all living persons, but there are some exceptions. Long term incarcerated are one such exception and also those who in hiding. People who have disappeared would seem to be another obvious one. There's the remaining question of whether it's acceptable to use the images in articles which aren't on the people per se but their disappearance e.g. Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 74#Non-free use reassessment. I'd suspect the answer on this is yes since including the widely distributed photos of disappeared people "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". This isn't like what a shooter looks like since while those images might be widely distributed, it doesn't particularly matter if anyone knows what they look like. By comparison the hope is that anyone who might plausibly see disappeared people know what they look like. But I've never taken part in NFCC discussions on this so have no idea if this is the general community consensus. But I suspect the fact more than 50% of our articles on disappeared people have such images including 1 extremely high profile example (McCann, I just noticed Patz isn't actually NFCC although it was from 2007) suggests community consensus has been in that direction. It's possible community consensus will only come down in support when those images have been distributed widely enough, but that's likely to be a tricky balance so definitely not something that's a slam dunk either way. Nil Einne (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

BTW see Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2023 August 18#File:Lucy Letby mugshot.png for confirmation this isn't just something no one noticed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)f

NB my assumption is that the children were all too young for criminal responsibility to be a concern. But going by this [3], I guess Jayda was ten during the bank robbery. But even so, I'm unconvinced that saying a child who was taken by her father at the age of eight into fairly unknown circumstances accompanied her father at age 10 during a bank robbery raises significant BLPCRIME concerns, as I think most people would assume that there is no reasonable possibility of criminal responsibility in such circumstances even if the child was technically over the legal threshold in the jurisdiction. Nil Einne (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The person suspected of a crime (Wasting police time? Really?) absconding is irrelevant for the application of WP:BLPCRIME. If this was nominated for deletion I might support it per WP:TNT if there isn't a suitable redirect target. TarnishedPath^talk 11:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

One of the issues is that for a variety of reasons details of things like custody don't tend to be discussed much in NZ. But if you read sources like [4], it seems clear even if you put aside the bank robbery etc, it's quite likely more significant charges will be due than simply wasting police time if father is ever arrested. Beyond the secrecy over such things in NZ, I suspect one of the reasons there hasn't been much talk is there is no reason. Whatever is alleged is ongoing. The bank robbery and stuff are one of events each of which are their own alleged crime. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath -- I fully agree with your view point. Slacker13 (talk) 05:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Again, BLPCRIME says one must "seriously consider", not that it is a hard and fast rule every time. There really isn't any way to write this article that does not have this problem. I don't really think this is a violation, given that he does seem to have ''become'' a public figure or something close to this by doing this (see Casey Anthony example given above), and it's not like his name was only given in low quality sources, the RS do name him. A bigger BLP concern would be the children as stated. The RS do name them so it's not a straightforward violation (and doesn't need to be reveled or anything) but that should probably be cut down on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Tom Arnold

He also appeared in the Movie-PEGASUS:PONY WITH THE BROKEN WING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.150.250 (talk) 05:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I added it to the article. In the future, this sort of thing (a missing film), is not a BLP issue, and the article is not protected, so you can add it yourself. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Dave Plummer Troll Yet Again

There has been a long-term campaign by an IP hopping user to accuse Dave Plummer of a crime based upon a settlement he made in 2006 with the Washington State Attorney General's Office. The article already covers the lawsuit in a way that complies with our BLP policy -- See Dave Plummer#Career.

Previous discussions: [5][6][7][8]

Just days after the protection expired, the dave Plummer Troll is back again making the same accusations[9]. This has gone on for years.

If the previous pattern repeats, we will once again see a press release from a prosecutor treated as a reliable source for someone commiting a crime (funny that they never cite "my client is innocent" press releases by defense attourneys as reliable sources).

@Cullen328:

--Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 17:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I had semi-protected the article for a year in October, 2023. I have now semi-protected it for two years. Cullen328 (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Denis

Need some experienced-editor eyes on this one. Ongoing disputes about accusations of racism, some back-and-forth by IP editors I haven't looked into, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Annoying. Many of the citations are dead links or paywalled, and none of the disputants have deigned to say anything on the Talk page. I can essay some cleanup, but the article needs a lot of work. JamesMLane t c 19:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've drastically shorted the Professional Misconduct section, as it was about a single event and only supported by two sources that said basically the same thing. Woodroar (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I tackled the discussion of the alleged racist videos, with cleanup and reorganization. JamesMLane t c 23:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Imane Khelif

Massive BLP violations by IP editors in the talk page. Would like more eyes on it... possibly could be blanked by an admin if judged appropriately. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Section for reference: Talk:Imane_Khelif#New_Evidence_Published_In_French. Supposed leaked medical documents were published by Le Correspondant an "independent" French newspaper that isn't listed in WP:RSP. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

lots of coverage of highly salacious stories regarding algerians, morrocans, liberians, etc.

Cannot find much else about it on google. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I would call Le Correspondant a newspaper... More like a group blog, the American comparison that comes to mind is InfoWars but its not entirely as bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The author of the article is also the outlet's President and Director of Publication (via Google translate), which raises concerns about SPS—and should automatically disqualify it from being used for a BLP claim. Woodroar (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree this site fails the sniff test for WP:BLP sourcing. It's got no responsible editorial oversight, and as Horse Eye's Back said, it's rather unsavory. It's sensational and it's offensive. But if you want true WP bureaucratic condemnation, seek opinions also at WP:RSN. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Quite frankly any story that is parroting other sites based on a "leaked medical report" should be presumed unreliable given that such "leaked medical report"s are generally not verified. TarnishedPath^talk 11:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It's unverified, unverifiable, and if true perpetuates an invasion of privacy (think criminal/civil issues, but not for anyone here, just a nightmare for the subject/victim/plaintiff). True or false, its inclusion would make Wikipedia look pretty bad in a BLP way. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

...Unless the subject suing the shit out of publishers/parrots becomes itself noteworthy. And also WP:NOTNEWS a bit, as even that is developing. We shall see. For now, I stand by the above. JFHJr (㊟) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Jessica Andrews (writer)

Jessica Andrews (writer)

In the 'early life' section, this article states that the author's parents divorced due to her father's heavy drinking. The source for this information is linked from an elle magazine article 'learning to love after heartbreak.' This article does not state that the author's parents divorced due to her father's alcoholism. This is a false assumption.

Hi @Jessicacandrews:, welcome to Wikipedia. I've removed the last part of the statement about the reason for your parents divorce. Knitsey (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much - really appreciated. Jessicacandrews (talk) 17:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Alan Schatzberg

Request: A section entitled "Controversy" on this page (Alan Schatzberg) provides a biased, inaccurate, and incomplete viewpoint. As documented in this article and other online sources (https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/pn.43.16.0006), the University confirmed that Dr. Schatzberg complied with disclosure policies. I ask that his page be updated to reflect the facts around this topic in a more complete and balanced way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1c0:4780:f760:a9d0:535c:9891:2633 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

You don’t need to post here. Please post on talk page or feel free to do it yourself if you think so. Anyways, I removed that entire paragraph as it was a single source and WP:CRITICISM suggests against controversy sections Bluethricecreamman (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Much appreciated. 2601:1C0:4780:F760:A9D0:535C:9891:2633 (talk) 22:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Philip Dwyer

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

---

Philip Dwyer

The following attack page, stored on Wiki servers, is defamatory, labeling an individual, "Mr. Philip Dwyer" erroneously and without legal basis as "Far Right". The term is used across the entire article to slur Mr. Dwyer.

There has been no case in the Republic of Ireland to date, that has legally stated that the character of the still living individual 'Philip Dwyer' is in fact Far-Right.

The label Far-Right is synonymous with Nazi, antisemitic and often other illegal practices and is severely damaging to a person's character.

Failure to remove the article, now on notice, may be viewed as a missed or deliberately ignored opportunity to protect the individual in question.

It is urged and advised that the article be removed and deleted without delay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legal-overview (talk • contribs) 17:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Philip Dwyer

@Legal-overview: Then perhaps you should start by targeting the various newspapers and scholarly works that call him far-right, and not waste your time with pseudo-legal thuggery that will get you blocked for attempting to induce a chilling effect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Legal-overview: no case or legal basis is required. All that is required here is reliable sourcing. That appears to exist. As with any other WP:PUBLICFIGURE, this BLP will simply document what these reliable sources say. Your legal threat, now on notice, may be viewed as a missed or deliberately ignored opportunity to familiarize yourself with even the basics of WP:BLP. It is urged and advised that you familiarize yourself with our policies without delay. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 20:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Pampita

Would be grateful if some of the experts here could have a look at Pampita. I'm not sure the details about types of relationships she has had ("rebound", "situationship") are appropriate. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 23:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, see WP:PUBLICFIGURE first: it happens to provide an example using a public figure's personal life. This subject seeks attention as part of her profession. Is there a problem with the sources used to support the claims? JFHJr (㊟) 23:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There is no source for the description of three of the relationships (in the infobox). Looking at the source for (Short-lived rekindling of relationship) for another relationship, it's in Spanish, which I don't read, but a machine translation doesn't suggest that this description is in the source. Tacyarg (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please remove what is unsourced. Your edit summary might just say "removing unsourced; failed WP:V". Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Tasawar Hayat

The article lacks all the Wikipedia standards (Wikipedia:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestworkers (talk • contribs) 07:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The article has been WP:PRODed. If the PROD is removed, this BLP notability discussion should move to WP:AFD. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:45, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

PS, thank you @Duffbeerforme. JFHJr (㊟) 05:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

David Mearns

There is an ongoing situation at David Mearns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Mearns where an IP editor is repeatedly reverting the removal of an inaccurate and contentious claim made about the article subject in violation of WP:BLP.

The editor Subarqaz is clearly a biased individual who over the past 9 days has targeting three subjects with the same contentious information. See the contributions page for Subarqaz that are all identical in nature. The claims are contentious with a clear intent to defame the subjects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Subarqaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noddyhurst (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've pointed Subarqaz to our BLP policy and removed some other additions of theirs. If the issue continues, see if they'll discuss the changes on the article's Talk page. I'm afraid that little to nothing will be done until you communicate with the editor. Woodroar (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)