Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period. This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material. Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here. Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here. Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III. Search this noticeboard & archives Additional notes: Note that edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. Place the {{BLP noticeboard}} template on the talk page of articles that are being discussed here, and remove it when the discussion is resolved. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, consider using Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. All editors are encouraged to assist fellow editors regarding the reports below. Administrators should review enforcement instructions.
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Ryan Kavanaugh

Ryan Kavanaugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page has been under IP vandalism attacks for a couple of times runing into months. The IPs focus on adding negative content about the topic. This has led to incessant protection of the page. But each time the protection is lifted, the IP vandals will return to continue the vandalism.

The major issue is the negative and copied "Controversy & Lawsuits section" which was added by one of the IPs 184.147.127.76 on 5th August 2021‎ . This was reverted by another editor because it clearly violated the WP:BLP policy despite the fact that it has sources. Edit wars resumed. The page was again protected by till Nov 5, 2021.

Some of vandals became furious and initiated a discussion about this on the talk page because they were barred from editing the page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_Kavanaugh While this was going on, this User:JK.Kite, an extended user, re-added the negative "Controversy & Lawsuits section" in a blatant copied manner on 23rd August 2021‎. User:DanCherek spotted it and filed a Copyvio revdel report on 24 August 2021‎. He also removed the negative copied content.

User:DanCherek also restored part of the contentious content that was removed.User:TheresNoTime completed the Copyvio revdel on 24 August and removed the Copyvio revdel tag.

Shortly after this, this same User:JK.Kite on 25th August 2021 blantantly created a new negative "Controversy" section while the issue is still under contention at the Talk page. This has also initiated accusations on his talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JK.Kite#Paid_to_disseminate_false_and_misleading_info

The negative contentious content seems to be sourced but I believe it is strongly against the WP:BLP policy. Also there's a need to reach a consensus on this since it is contentious. It can be balanced, neutralized or removed because we're dealing with a living person here.

I suggest the page be restored to the last edit without the "Controversy" until a consensus is reached on this. Hence, I am restoring the page back to the last stable edit by "ChrisTakey" until a consensus is reached on this.Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. My initial involvement was purely in a copyright capacity, but I was dismayed to see my action misrepresented on the talk page as if my removal of copyright content was an endorsement of the whitewashing that has been going on. Based on this post, it appears that Yaxı Hökmdarz does not understand that this is not vandalism and that the reason for the page's protection was not to keep out any and all negative content (this was the stable version restored by the protecting administrator). Looking at the recent page history, I see that Yaxı Hökmdarz is the only editor who has been persistently trying to restore an old version of the page since early July, including a ridiculous "quotes" section, and that they had not even tried to use the talk page until three hours ago (to post the notice of this discussion). DanCherek (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you are an experienced user and I wasn't expecting this type of edit/removal from you unless you have Conflict of interest to save this guy from negative info. You are continuously removing sourced and true information from the page which is from worlds top sources NYT and Variety. Please don't mind but you are vandalizing the page yourself and presenting the case we are doing something wrong. There are 1000s of pages with negative infos that are true and sourced. So, I suggest you should refrain from reverting sourced material and if you have COI or paid to do this please declare on your talk page and articles talk page. There's no copyvio on the current edit that was added by me. If this arbitration decides the removal of controversies, we have no issues but for now you should respect the sourced materials added to the pages. You should also read WP:BLP carefully that you mentioned. @DanCherek: could shed more light on this issue. Thank you JK.Kite (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

JK.Kite, be mindful how you make baseless COI insinuations here and face the matter on ground. You're already being accused of COI concerning this on your talk page by someone else. An IP editor added this same content under "Controversy and Litigation" sub-section few days back. It got reverted. The page got protected against those IPs. Now, you as an extended editor re-added it in a blatant copied manner almost at the same period and this led to Copyvio revdel tag issue. Judge for yourself here who is having COI issue.

Let's face the matter squarely here:

I brought the matter here because this is the appropriate place to deal with it since it has been under contention. I pinged you and every other editor involved. I also want WP:BLP admins and other experienced editors to look into the matter so we can reach a consensus. If I have a COI interest, I shouldn't bring the matter here.

I came into this matter because I noticed several IP accounts trying to add the same negative controversial and damaging content since early July. I have reported quite a good number and they got banned. I also requested protection of the page twice because these IPs keep coming back once the protection period expires. I never added new content. I only reverted to the last stable version that has no negative controversy section.

I stated clearly that the "Controversy”: update is reverted temporarily until the issue is settled here. I am not here to support Ryan the subject. I don't know who he is. I am only seeking justice in line with what I read at WP:BLP.

Here's my point:

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:SUSPECT which are sub sections under WP:BLP clearly states the following:

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § 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.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information.

From the above, the content of the "Controversy" section clearly shouldn't be there despite the fact they are from two sources. They are simply unproven accusations against Ryan who is not a public figure and the cases are still in court. Litigations are still on. Hence the subject is presumed innocent for the time being.

In line with WP:BLPCRIME cited above, such a content should only be added when the subject has been convicted by a competent court.

If Ryan is already convicted, then, such a content may be allowed. I won't try to revert such an edit for once if he's already convicted.

That's the basis of my argument. I am only concerned with this negative controversial content. Not worried about the “Ridiculous Quote” subsection and others.

I brought the matter here so that BLP admins and other experienced editors will look at it.

Also, from experience on wiki, where there's a contentious issue like this, the update is usually set aside until a consensus is reached. I am once again reverting the edit temporarily pending when a consensus is reached here.

If at the end of the day, BLP admins and other experienced editors agree we leave the "controversy" content, I'll expressly abide by this and go my way. I simply want to get things done right according to the wiki policy we use.

We all as editors owe it a duty to protect English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be used a tool to victimize others by any means. Let's play by the rules.

JK.Kite, I appeal to you to hold on with your "controversy" update until we get clearance here by WP:BLP admins and other experienced editors. If I am wrong, I’ll learn from them concerning controversial issues like this for future.

And JK.Kite , I like what you wrote on your userpage Anything you do, good or bad, Karma is there for you’’. That’s a wonderful one for everyone. Thanks all. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Yaxı Hökmdarz, please try to condense. At some point, WP:TLDR turns into filibustering. Thanks. El_C 22:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I believe Ryan Kavanaugh, high profile film producer and Variety's 2011 Showman of the Year, is a public figure and WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to him. Further some of the proceedings against him are civil cases, not criminal. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Justin Paul (scholar)

Several claims to this person lack proper links (e.g. "Previously, Paul served as a faculty member with Rollins College,[3] the University of Washington and Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan.[4]"). These links are to the universities, but not evidence that he served there. The only references are on his LinkedIn page, which is not verifiable. Another example: "He left his bank job and did his Ph.D. He was an Assistant Professor and Department Chair at Indian Institute of Management (IIM)." Where and when did he do his PhD? What discipline was his PhD in? Which campus of IIM? Again, these claims were not verifiable. None of his textbooks appears to be well cited. Although he claims to be a 'Distinguished Professor' at a low-profile Indian institution (Symbiosis Institute of Business Management), he has only 1 journal article with acceptable GS citations, and the journal itself is not regarded as top tier. Needs a lot of cleaning up, or suggest deletion due to unverifiable claims and low prestige as an academic.

Elonka Dunin

Hi, for those who don't know me, I am a longtime editor and administrator of Wikipedia, and there is also an article about me for other reasons, at Elonka Dunin. I of course won't make any controversial change directly to this article for COI reasons, but I would appreciate another set of eyes. A few weeks ago a (relatively) new editor added two sentences to the lead of the article, stating my affiliation with Wikipedia, and that I'm an acquaintance of Dan Brown.[1] I feel that putting these comments in the lead may be giving undue weight to them (and the Dan Brown comment is actually redundant), and suggest that perhaps they should either be removed, or included elsewhere in the article. Regarding my Wikipedia editing, if others feel that it is appropriate to include, perhaps do so in the "Works" section? I don't feel it should be in the lead though, because, per WP:LEAD, it is neither summarizing the rest of the article, nor is it indicating a primary reason for my notability. Thanks for any attention here, --Elonka 02:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

These requests were appropriate and I have edited as recommended. (Being an acquaintance of someone should basically never be lead material.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. This request can now be closed. --Elonka 22:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ann Coulter and a conspiracy theorist CAT tag

The Ann Coulter article includes a CAT tag for American_conspiracy_theorists[2]. I'm concerned that this violates both BLP and CATDEF. The category itself contains a warning about it's use on BLP subjects. The problem here is that we do have sources that say Coulter has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory with respect to white farmers in South Africa. In the article body we do not have attributed claims of sources calling Coulter herself a conspiracy theorist and we certainly don't call her that in Wiki voice. WP:BLPCAT states, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. " I don't see that we have risen to that standard in this case. Conspriacy theorist is always going to be a difficult category per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since rarely does the subject call themselves a conspiracy theorist and thus we are left with the question how many sources are required to say that, per CATDEF, the label is a "characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having". Since it is clearly a contentious label and the use effectively states in wiki-voice that the subject is a conpiracy theorist I believe this is a BLP violation. Grayfell disagree and has restored the tag. We are the only two participants in the discussion thus a very local NOCON situation exists[3]. Is this tag a BLP violation? Springee (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To summarize what I said on the talk page, sources support that she is a conspiracy theorist. Right now this is specifically regarding the white genocide conspiracy theory, which is unambiguously a conspiracy theory. There are also other sources for this regarding the unfounded (and debunked) October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Conspiracy theories, which is that they were perpetrated by a "leftist" or leftists. ([4],[5], etc.) So who exactly is contesting this label? How, exactly, is this "contentious"? Merely being unflattering is not sufficient for something to be contentious, because this is an encyclopedia, not a public relations service. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

The problem is you didn't provide sources that say "she is X" only that she promoted a given conspiracy theory. None of what you presented would meet the standard to apply that contentious label in wiki-voice which means we can't apply a tag which says the same. This is why CATDEF says that to apply a CAT it must be commonly and consistently applied to the subject. A few sources applying the label with respect to something in 2018 doesn't hit that bar. If you think we have hit that level why doesn't the lead say she is a conspiracy theorist? Springee (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

• I'd like to point out a similar issue on another article. Andy Ngo is categorized under "Gay writers" and "LGBT people from Oregon" even though these aren't defining characteristics and the sources don't discuss these specific characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't call either a contentious or subjective claim (Ngo would probably agree that he is gay, an LGBT person, a writer and from Oregon). I also would agree that both are examples of over categorization. LGBT people from Oregon as a category seems to directly conflict with WP:OCLOCATION. WP:OCEGRS mentions Category:LGBT writers. I would presume if a person doesn't notably associate their writing and their LGBT status then that person shouldn't be in the category. Springee (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I wish more editors were more willing to have a healthy relationship with reality. When people spread conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy theorists. Our articles should inform readers accordingly, as indeed this one does -- and then a navigational aid does no harm at all. Definitely not a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You have just argued for OR and that we should apply contentious labels on BLP based on such OR rather than on the usual RS process. Springee (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Except that sources do support this. There is no OR here, since it's per many reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

If this is the case it should be easy to show that sources commonly call her a conspiracy theorist. Springee (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• I really don't think it should be controversial to say that we should only describe people as a conspiracy theorist if reliable sources describe them as a conspiracy theorist. It seems pretty simple that contentious labels are the last place we should be sticking our OR. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Coulter is, per many reliable sources, an advocate of conspiracy theories. Stating this in simple terms is not automatically contentious. Describing this as a contentious label, as a way to remove it, would be concealing accurate information merely because it makes some people uncomfortable. As an encyclopedia, our goal should be to cut through euphemisms and explain things directly. Whether or not this is a flattering description is irrelevant to its accuracy. Saying "I don't think it should be controversial" is merely implying that your own opinion is common sense, which is unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think you are making a strong case for including that, per sources, she has perpetuated something that has been called a conspiracy theory. The article reflects that. However, we distinguish between someone who has perpetuated a single conspiracy theory and someone whom RS consistently and commonly call a conspiracy theorist. To use the tag you need to show the latter, not the former. Springee (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This is a strong point. There are people like Alex Jones who are absolutely conspiracy theorists because RSes routinely say that on the part that people like Jones constantly are discussing numerous disproven theories. But if all we have is that we know from sources that a person has spoken to support of a single conspiracy theory but does not support many, nor frequently discusses their support of this one theory, that's a stretch in terms of calling them a conspiracy theorist, and unless there's strong RSes that have opted to call that person directly a conspiracy theorist, then it would be an OR/BLP problem to call them that as well, and definitely to catalog them that way.

Also to Grayfell's statement "As an encyclopedia, our goal should be to cut through euphemisms and explain things directly." this is not true when it comes to controversial aspects about a topic, particularly about a BLP. There's too much thought and intent from editors nowadays that we have to lay out "shame" on BLP and other topics that are frequently put down and written negatively about in the press. WP's goal is to summarize sources and provide a neutral, impartial coverage of the topic, and for most controversial topics, this means that we cannot "explain things directly" as that breaks neutrality, instead leaving it up to the reader to decide. WP is not meant to have a moral stance on most issues, and while I'm sure most editors here agree that conspiracy theories and misinformation are bad things, we cannot let that tone be taken up by Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

We don't yet have evidence (from what is posted here and at the Talk page of her bio) of her supporting any conspiracy theories. We have provocation and contentious statements from Coulter that are sufficiently grounded in known information and avoid the conspiracy-theoretic part of the topic (e.g., white genocide plot, false flag) to not qualify, while in some cases also being a step or two removed from an actual conspiracy theory. Nebulously-close-to-conspiracy-theory is not conspiracy theory and certainly not for CATDEF. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• We don't put people in conspiracy theorist categories unless relaible sources consistently describe them as such. If it can be reliably sourced that they are known for spreading or repeating one or more conspiracy theories, that can easily be mentioned in the text. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
• We should not be categorizing Coulter as a "conspiracy theorist" without this exact wording in sources. Sources saying that she promoted things that we know to be conspiracy theories is not the same thing (it has to be a defining trait of someone to call them a "conspiracy theorist", rather than, say, unknowing promotion of some conspiracy theories). — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"White genocide" section of her bio is weaponized SYNTH, sources don't support

The factual premise, that sources indicate Coulter is a White Genocide Theorist, is not supported by reading what is cited in her bio, and her own statements are weak sauce that lack the conspiracy-theoretic elements cited in the white genocide article. Nothing about Jews, Kalergi plan, the UN/Davos/Bilderberg, or other shadowy agents conspiring; nothing about white extinction, no connection of the situation of whites in different countries as part of a single phenomenon, no references to "Western civilization" or WHITES WRIT LARGE in some global sense.

In every case where Coulter does use the word "genocide" it is always significantly qualified or indirect or indicating what someone else said, or does not talk about "whites" (or even "whites in South Africa") in toto. Given the number of books and articles in which she has published her views on this, that no clear claim that whites are being genocided has emerged is a strike against the idea that she supports any conspiracy theories related to this. Where she assigns blame and motives to people responsible for mass nonwhite immigration, specific people and groups are named, with documentation provided. No unlikely conspiracy is imputed much less a global one involving Jews, alien lizards etc.

The sources (SPLC and one of the Vox links) that directly comment on "white genocide" in relation to Coulter only state that her statements are *consistent with* the theory, which is to say, they understand the libel laws, and that nothing she published quite fits the description. Other sources merely quote the one word "genocide", not any full sentence from Coulter that would support the charge of conspiracy theory.

It's very weak sauce and her bio article should be fixed to remove the SYNTH. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oct 2018 mail bomb tweet is even weaker as a supposed "conspiracy theory"

Since Grayfell pointed to October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Conspiracy theories, I checked the sources. In response to a bomb alarm at CNN, Coulter posted a tweet (https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1055121317911965696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) that does not directly refer to the series of supposed mail bombs or who sent them. Whether she "really" meant to comment on that or what the tweet was saying about it is open to interpretation, but this is a couple of steps removed from the "false flag" conspiracy theory. The sentence in that Wikipedia article listing Coulter as one of the people spreading the false-flag theory (or whatever other conspiracies) is wrong and is not supported by the sources cited. The sources have their own problems, and in any case, speculation (which Coulter did not necessarily engage in) about who committed a crime before any suspect is identified is not what is WP:COMMONly called a "conspiracy theory" unless it involves, e.g., an actual purported conspiracy. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo and sexual orientation cats

I'll keep this as a subthread since it started above although it has nothing to do with the original issue really. Per WP:BLPCAT Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.. While the first is clearly met I'm unconvinced the second is. I had a look at the source and while there is quote from the subject of being a member of a sexual minority it doesn't seem to establish relevance and I'm not convinced the earlier part on him coming out does either although it could be argued that the response to it is part of what brought him here. IMO we need better sources and an expansion in the article if we want to continue to include the sexual orientation cats. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's probably just as misapplied as it is for half of the people in that category. There are reliable sources that discuss his sexuality being relevant in some vague sense: He is gay and Asian, which, qua Milo Yiannopoulos and Candace Owens, enables his supporters to deploy the rhetoric of liberal identity politics and victimization against the left,[6] but his sexuality isn't really relevant to anything he writes, so it does seem not to be a particularly important intersection for him. I'm not so sure though that this is really a BLP issue so much as it is a (less important) overcategorization issue. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You're correct there are a lot of shitty article. Unfortunately a lot of people think it's okay to dump living people in whatever categories they think remotely fits. We get a similar problem with birthdates and other such stuff. There's no excuse for it and on BLPN we should not ignore shitty articles we're made aware of just because there are a lot of shitty articles.

And it is a BLP issue otherwise it wouldn't be explicitly mentioned in our BLP policy. While he clearly identifies as gay, it doesn't mean he likes being categorised in that fashion. Plenty of people do not feeling it pigeonholes them or whatever. While what a subject may prefer does not directly affect our coverage, this demonstrates just because something is technically true doesn't mean we don't cause harm by how we present the information. We've decided that we should not use categories of that sort when they are of no relevance to their notability because they can affect a living person in numerous ways such as that I mentioned.

That said, with the Buzzfeed News source, I'm fine with letting this stand for now since while BLP requires that "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources", I'm unsure how to interpret the intersection of this with next two sentences. (If the relevance is in sources but not in the text, is that serious enough to warrant removal?) I also seem to recall allegations I think either from the subject or his supporters some of the attacks have been at least partly homophobic in nature.

The particular point of the BLPCAT requirement is from memory of previous discussions to avoid the problem were people go dumping someone into the cat just because they can find some source showing self-identification when there's no relevance to what they are notable for and indeed few people who've heard of them would even be aware of it. (I would say this happens more with religious ones than sexual orientation once since given long oppression etc, non-heterosexual sexual orientations tend to receive a lot of attention whereas religion can be a case of 'They're A? Oh okay, interesting.')

Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's okay BLP-wise because I think him being gay is both reliably sourced and also discussed enough by reliable sources to be somewhat relevant to his public life (see e.g. the line in the Buzzfeed piece I quoted, here's another from a quick google search: They want to like him because he’s gay and a person of color. But he’s right of center and it drives them nuts.[7]). Seems to satisfy BLPCAT and I'm also not sure we'd have any extra reason to believe that we'd harm someone describing them as an LGBT writer as opposed to describing them as LGBT and also a writer – to me those really do just mean the same thing and I don't think we'd have to worry about people feeling pigeonholed. That's, of course, separate to other overcategorization concerns. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

So we can combine sources that describe Ngo as gay/LGBT and ones that describe him as a writer, even though none call him a "gay writer", but labeling Anne Coulter as a "conspiracy theorist" requires sources that use those exact words? –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It is presumed that the category "gay writers" as presented is for writers who are gay, which is a simple intersection of two objective facts that are supported in isolation (being gay, and being a writer), similar to Category:American actors -- and not a category for writers that focus their writing on gay (LGBT) issues, which would be a characterization and would require an explicit sourced. "Conspiracy theorist" is a complete characterization - given that there are many potential levels of what one could be a conspiracy theorist - and thus why we need far more explicit sourcing to avoid OR/BLP issues from editors.

That said, I would tend to agree in what Nil Einne states is that "gay writers" is not necessarily a natural intersectional category, in contrast to "American actors", in that yes, there are writers that likely do not promote their sexuality on purpose, but may have let slip about that sexuality elsewhere, enough that we can document. That may make them in an LGBT category and may place them in "writers" but not necessarily call themselves "gay writers". It would likely be better to have the other type of category that I suggested "writers that focus on LGBT issues" which I would assume would include gay writers that have no problem with that labeling. If readers really want to know writers who are gay, they can use category intersection tools. These sexuality/gender identity intersectional categories probably need a large rethink at a top level for this reason. --Masem (t) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Some of these race/gender/sexuality intersections are so narrowly specific I really question the worth they provide to the encyclopedia. What is actually the point in having e.g. Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent or Category:LGBT businesspeople from France? Busy work for people with editcountitis? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I generally stay away from hyper-specific categories when I’m editing but I will admit that when I’m browsing they can be interesting categories to explore and if we’re being honest >90% of users never even use the categories feature at all. I don’t see a ton of worth but I see a lot more worth than I see harm (I basically see no harm to the encyclopedia from these). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This is getting more into how we use cats rather than the BLP side, but: In a perfect world, MediaWiki would have a simple way to do category intersection searches, such that we would only categorize on "one" factor (like being a writer, being gay, etc.), and the only time we'd create an intersectional category is where there is clear evidence that reliable sources have called out this category (a concept of notability applied to categories). For example, it should be clear that there's strong interest in the intersectional category "Female politicians" or "Gay/LGBT politicians" but nearly no interest in "Male politicians" or "Heterosexual politicians", so in this perfect system with intersection searching, we may have a "female politicians" category but not the opposite "Male politicians" category though that could be obtained by intersection searching. To contrast still within this perfect world solution, we would like have both "Female actors" and "Male actors" as categories as that is a natural intersection in sourcing.

But we only have hodge-podge category intersection searching right now, and thus we end up with lots of these intersectional categories that may be interesting to browse (as Horse Eye's Back suggests) but at the end of the day may not reflect natural categorization aspects. To again turn to "Female politicians", we know that's of interest but because of how we set up categorization, it nearly requires "Male politicians" (and potentially "Non-binary politicians" as well). If we start having "gay writers", that would suggest we need a category for "straight writers" as well as "gay/straight <other professions>" which is perhaps too much intersection category work. Hence why I think we might want to rethink these intersectional categories for both these reasons as well as the suggested BLP reasons (that is: just being gay and just being a writer doesn't necessarily make said person, in that person's view, a "gay writer"). --Masem (t) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That sort of technical solution would be a dream! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Masem and Horse Eye's Back: Regarding category intersections, is PetScan something you're looking for? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That's the type of tool that I mentioned that existed to help search category intersections, but ideally it should be something that is directly within the Mediawiki software. --Masem (t) 22:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Conforth

Bruce Conforth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mr Conforth is a well respected and award-winning academic and author, the first curator of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, now retired, who has been accused of sexual assaults in his previous employment, as has been widely reported in published media such as the New York Times. His article has been subject for some years to multiple IP edits seeking to present him in the best possible light, and IP edits (most recently here) are now seeking to remove all mention of the recent allegations from the article. Some admin input is requested to resolve this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• It appears that they have edited with four IP addresses in the range 2601:400:8000:AC70:* to both remove the negative, add puff and praise and remove maintenance tags regarding poor sourcing. Since they are located in Ann Arbor they clearly have a COI. Could maybe an edit filter block that range from that page? KylieTastic (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Also I see that others from Ann Arbor have also been editing some positive some negative but probably all linked to subject and/or University of Michigan - Such as 2601:400:8100:2E90:395F:1657:D69B:7164, 2601:401:100:1266:745C:13D3:BB2C:A051, 2601:400:8000:390:65C4:F1D8:4144:B696, 2601:400:8000:4F21:DE:D030:E3C:81EF. KylieTastic (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• I've partial-blocked the /64 that is edit-warring from the article. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Aseem Malhotra

There's a statement on the Aseem Malhotra article that refers to another living person. It's sourced but should it be removed as potentially libellous?

In Dirty Tricks at the bottom of the article:

He claims that he is the victim of a “dirty tricks” campaign by......

Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Viv Hamilton (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the "dirty tricks" section is undue weight. I support your edits on the article you have done good work but I don't think it needs its own section and I think it is undue weight. I would support removal of the dirty tricks section as it is sourced to only 1 reference and seems to be on a different topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. There is another source I have found on online academic bullying that I was going to include in the same section. Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I will probably change the heading when I add the new material. The online academic bullying article makes the point that science is sometimes the process of dissent from the consensus but you don't know at the time whether this is progress or not, so as well as mentioning a Malhotra piece as an example, it seems to fit the overall picture of someone that will be controversial because he/she challenges the consensus. For the controversial sections I am trying to follow the guidance about balance and putting facts first then grouping the negative criticism, so I felt it would be cleaner to put these extra bits separate from the controversial subjects. Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thinking further, I am going to remove it, at least until I add the other material, as that seems consistent with BLP, which seems to give the message, if in doubt take it out! Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Brad Torgersen

Brad R. Torgersen page has been subject to a slow-motion editing war concerning whether Mr. Torgersen's detailed military service and decorations are notable for the Wikipedia page of a science fiction author. References provided have been the subject's own web page and a copy of the subject's service record which was uploaded to Wikimedia by the subject. The anonymous editors were invited to provide verifiable sources to support the notability of this information for this Wikipedia page. An admin locked the page and requested the topic be hashed out on the Talk page before editing the page further. The lock has expired, and the edit war has resumed without following the admin's instructions and with no references provided to establish notability. Admin assistance requested. CiaraCat (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed and warned. May need extra eyes on these. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ernest Gondzik

Hi. I'd like a second opinion on this diff which cites a Facebook page for this person's death. He may well have died, but is this a WP:RS in this case? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Although it's quite likely true, it's also not a reliable source. If the person is notable then we should have reliable secondary sources covering it reasonably quickly. There's no real rush to make sure that it's updated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A Facebook page of what looks like his local wrestling club isn’t an WP:RS (normally). At his age, a death announcement is credible. But, what’s odd is I googled him and nothing comes up - even though it was posted on 14 august and says he died on 13 August. I would have thought an Olympic competitor’s death (even a minor Olympian?) would get a mention somewhere in the online Polish press by now. Sad if it’s true and no one’s bothered to report it. Maybe treat it as a WP:PRIMARY source and add a line limited to saying the club announced it on Facebook? DeCausa (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Fairly sure this isn't the first time we have reason to think an olympian died but lack any decent sources. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm also a-ok with DeCausa's idea of treating it as primary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexander De Croo

Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo has become involved in a scandal where he contacted a pornographic actress Eveline Dellai to arrange a meeting. Apparently this scandal caused a major delay in the formation of a new government in Belgium. I made the initial edit to his page denoting the scandal but since then have been unable to maintain a paragraph discussing it. I have been warring with another user (possibly a sock puppet) despite trying to move the discussion to the talk page (to no avail) and I realize it would be helpful to have some outside input on how best to add this information to the page in an encyclopedic way. Thank you so much for your help. Iloveapphysics (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@Iloveapphysics: The way forward is to discuss it at the talk page. Be sure to mention that the cited newspaper, Corriere della Sera, is a major Italian newspaper. If a consensus is reached among editors at the talk page to include the material and the new SPA user (Ormegan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) continues to edit war, then their conduct can be addressed separately. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you- will do. Iloveapphysics (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

shirley brown (Florida politician)

• Shirley Brown (Florida politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

People are inserting libelous personal views on this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.61.160 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That is a crappy-looking WP:BLP, needs improvement or deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Doug Barrowman

Doug Barrowman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, single-purpose user SeonaMillar [8] has been continually engaging in WP:DE by adding their own content into the lead paragraph of this BLP for about a year, despite the input of other editors on talk and this noticeboard. Despite consensus reached here, user refuses to engage in discussion and continually reverts. Their material is poorly referenced (tabloid newspapers and parliamentary records), and some citations don't even mention the subject of the BLP. Their content also makes the lead para very long and poorly summarises the article.

I think the lead para in the earlier revision here breaches NPOV and gives a lot of weight to a controversy that's already in the content down the page phrased in a more neutral way.

Could I get another set of eyes on this please?

ScepticalChymist (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Ken Paxton

Ken Paxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Removed false and defamatory material in violation of Wikipedia policies. Removed entire introductory section making false, partisan claims about alleged acts of "insurrection." This false and defamatory material violates Wikipedia NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons policies.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed false and defamatory partisan claims related to alleged acts of "bribery." This false and defamatory material violates Wikipedia NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons policies.

Preserved mention in introduction of 2015 indictment related to alleged securities fraud charges. This is the only actual case of alleged criminal charges filed. All unsubstantiated, false, and defamatory claims against Paxton involving hearsay and speculation violate Wikipedia policy.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Another user is continuously violating Living Persons policy by reverting article to include false and defamatory hearsay material, aside from any actual alleged criminal charges, which was preserved in the one case such charges exist. Please lock article to avoid edit war and inclusion of this false and defamatory material.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Whine whine whine. It all comes with perfectly good sources, and since Wikipedia is a reality-based effort we're not going to delete material that you think is "defamatory" even though true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

WP is also a CIVIL place. We should focus on the quality of specific arguments and help new editors understand how to address their concerns. Often IP editors are inexperienced editors who are correctly identifying a problem but don't understand the Wiki-legalese needed to help fix it. Springee (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The contested material does have issues with IMPARTIAL. It is written with a conspiratorial tone and a way that makes the view of the editors very clear. There are two bits of contested material. The first is the accusations against Paxton. This is a relatively long article yet ~1/3 of the lead is about charges filed in 2015 that as of 2021 haven't resulted in any conviction. That does suggest that the charges might have been politically motivated. Absent a conviction having them in the lead vs all the other things he has done is questionable. The Texas election lawsuit sentence almost certainly should be part of the lead but again IMPARTIAL needs to apply. It's impossible to read that sentence and not understand that the editors who wrote it are adding a POV vs simply stating the facts. I would say the IP editor is correct to remove the accusation material but wrong to remove the lawsuit material. The real issue here is the lead is inadequate and should be fixed. Springee (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the time frame means much since it's an incitement and ongoing case rather than simply accusation which didn't amount to anything. The lengthy time frame seems to reflect more on the US legal system and complicated way such white collar cases tend to be handled, and perhaps also the ability of rich defendants to challenge everything, than any indication of a "political motivation". However it is true that absent a conviction we have to be careful not to give undue weight. But at the same time, having an attorney general to be under indictment while in office is definitely something that is fairly unusual and so not surprisingly has received attention and concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne that the case's length is a feature of the legal system and not evidence of politically-motivated allegations. I would support shortening the section on the case, which could be done by cutting down on the blow-by-blow narration of the procedural motions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The case certainly needs to be part of the article but condensing away the play by play sounds like a good idea. Given the very short length of the lead I don't think this should be, effectively, 1/3rd of the total lead and one of two paragraphs covering what might be seen as the optional/variable info in the lead. I typically assume the first paragraph is the boiler plate (who, what, when etc). The next two paragraphs are typically those that, when done correctly, summarize the rest of the article. The best solution is probably to rewrite the lead so it is a better summary of the complete article. These events may well be part of a more holistic summary of the topic and that would likely address the concerns here. I say that but I wouldn't want to be the person to take on the task. Springee (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Paxton is the type of article that we really really should keeping RECENTISM in mind and waiting on the ten-year view to decide whether any of these actions that are currently under legal evaluation are lede-worthy. We can absolutely document them in the body, but given the overall length of the body, the focus on these suspected actions, yet to be proven by a court of law, and not on what he actually has shown to have done, is the type of problematic editing that we tend to have on BLPs that are the common target of negative press journalism. We can't hide negative coverage, but we have to be aware that we are meant to right neutrally, impartially, and dispassionate about the topic, and we should give little care that the press wants to attack his character (no matter how much any of us as editors also feel that way). That can be really hard particularly in the areas Paxton's been involved with, but it needs to be done. --Masem (t) 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Legal Issues section looks fine to me, it's a factual description of the allegations and Paxton's responses along with significant events in the trials, however I agree that it probably doesn't need to be in the current short-form lead. I don't see anything in that section that appears biased or indicates the views of the editors who wrote it. I do take issue with editors characterizing the allegations as "false" (this is just as much of a BLP violation as labeling them as "true" in wiki voice), and the IP's effort to scrub negative content is clearly politically motivated. –dlthewave ☎ 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sadia Sadia

>request for assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin - please don't bite

Hello. My name is Sadia Sadia and I am the subject of this page. The page is now subject to an AfD so I at last felt I needed to step in. I am also concerned that the edit comments and AfD dialogue feel very aggressive.

My best guess is that the editor sees a COI issue with the page. Originally a colleague of mine submitted the page (his page has now been deleted). Thirteen or fourteen years ago Wiki was a very different place, much more Wild West, and there seemed to be wisdom in managing disinformation. This is generally no longer the case. I just don’t go near it, not even to correct an outdated link, for fear of exactly what is happening now.

The page has not been properly updated in six years. It is very tired and many of the links have become dead or irrelevant.

Over the weekend, using the framework of what is left, I redrafted the page bringing it up date to July 31st 2021 and which adds an additional forty references (goes to notability WP:MUSIC → gold album in at least one country, WP: FILM → Included in history of cinema programme, WP:FILM → selected for preservation in a national museum, etc.)

This editor also seems to be making edits that seem fairly verifiable. For example, ('She is also an award winning record producer and songwriter' is verified here (I produced nine albums in the David Wilcox catalogue, most of which went gold or platinum) [][]; my songwriting credits appear here [] [] with full attribution codes and Jaxsta is drawn directly from record company metadata. "Her work has been widely sequenced to films and television programmes by companies such as Polygram/Miramax, Interscope, and Universal Pictures" can be found by scrolling down the IMDB page to 'Soundtracks' (IMDB has accordion-style listings). "The Sydney Dance Company has two works in their permanent repertoire, 'Unwitting Sight' (1998) and 'Cradle Song' (2001) choreographed by Wakako Asano" is simply an incorrect URL, I have corrected it here "From 1998 to 2007 the Sydney Dance Company under the direction of Graeme Murphy [] held two works choreographed by Wakako Asano [] as part of their permanent repertoire, Unwitting Sight (1998) and Cradle Song (2001) [] with music by Sadia Sadia (Equa). [attribution can be found here→please scroll down ]. "Sadia began her career by becoming one of the first women in the world to be signed to a major label as a record producer" should probably read "During the 1990’s she sat as the only female member of the Directorate of REPRO (the British Record Producer’s Guild, now the MPG) [].

The editor identifies as an exclusionist and scientist - but I am not sure why they have not reached out through the Talk page. I do not feel I can safely communicate with them. I have been trying to add the correct links little by little to the Talk page (no doubt badly!!!) but the Talk page no longer seems to work - it will take a new section but turns the rest of the page into gobbledygook.

I can appreciate that it is difficult to edit for a multi-disciplinary artist.

I am concerned that my article will disappear before it has a chance to be improved, edited and revised with updated links. It is damaging to have it in contention like this, when so much is easily fixable.

Should I post the improved, corrected article in my Sandbox? Should I go into the article and make the corrections myself? This will no doubt attract the wrath of the current editor.

Given that this editor has taken such a hostile and pejorative tone in their edits and dialogue, has never reached out, I do not feel I can safely communicate with them. I feel as if I’m being attacked.

Can I request the assistance of an uninvolved editor or admin?

Is there somebody here who can help me?

GreenForestRanger (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Zhang Zhehan

Hello,

The Chinese version of actor Zhang Zhehan’s wikipage has high volume of edits each day, including many libelous content.

Section Controversy are full of false rumours with misleading descriptions. Some users make updates to set the record straight, but it gets updated again with libelous descriptions a minute later by other users.

Link: https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/張哲瀚 zhang zhehan

Zoe

You will need to deal with this on the Chinese Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia operates independently and we have no control over what goes on there, and it would be inappropriate to decide on the English Wikipedia what should happen there anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Cynthia_M._Chestnut

"She has since faced accusations of violent outbursts and abuse of office from former interns and colleagues during her tenure."

This last sentence of the bio is unsourced & should either be authoritatively sourced or removed.

PS: this is the first time I've ever commented on an Wiki article & I've no idea how to edit; will leave that to others w more experience : )

The vandalism has been removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)