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:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Florida Parental Rights in Education Act

Florida Parental Rights in Education Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I have strong concerns that the Support section of this article, and potentially other section, could very well be too libelous and too non-neutral in its phrasing.

I am particularly concerned about @PoliticalPoint's additions to the article regarding Donald Trump; while I originally added Trump's comments mentioning them as brief, as he only made not too much more than a single sentence comment when it comes to the act, PoliticalPoint added various context for Trump which highlighted his history of making these comments towards other people. These comments certainly would belong on Political positions of Donald Trump and articles directly related to Trump on LGBT populations, though the elaboration of his comments on this article seems to unduly emphasize libelous information about Trump and seeks to potentially jeopardize the neutrality of Wikipedia. My initial addition of Trump's opinion on the act added it after a sentence on the most prominent GOP opposition. Trump's comments on the bill were very brief per the source cited; in an interview with the Washington Post, it is explicitly mentioned he declined to comment further than "it was a good move". PoliticalPoint, however, elaborated further on Trump's opinion in an inappropriate manner, including talk about Trump's opposition to the Equality Act, his actions during his presidency, his federal judge appointments, and his other actions. While true, they are not appropriate, and by inclusion paint a potentially libelous portrait of Trump by using a mostly unrelated article to scrutinize the former president's other unrelated activities. This to me is a BLP violation, as these articles per BLP are to be written conservatively (as in limited, not politically conservatively) on the subject. WP:BLP further states that BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement; the edits here are an overstatement relative to the article. If anything, limit these comments to articles directly about Trump, not this one.

@AEagleLionThing (Diffs 1), have raised concerns that the neutrality of the article is also suboptimal in its writing, and despite PoliticalPoint citing WP:FALSEBALANCE, since Trump's views have been very brief on the Parental Rights in Education Act, they should not be necessarily elaborated in this particular article. PoliticalPoint also has frequently cited WP:FRINGE on the talk page for the Act's article; he/she/they seem to overlook that WP:FRINGE states in its lead that all majority and significant-minority views published in reliable sources should be represented fairly and proportionately. It does not seem like that PoliticalPoint's additions to Trump is proportionate, and that the potential for libel and personal views inappropriately entering the article is too high.

While not directly related to the above BLP issues, I believe it is further worth bringing up that previous revisions by PoliticalPoint have resulted in potentially biased edits removing the actual text of the bill and inserting additional content on the opposition. See this edit which removed the actual text of the Act per "due weight" instead of maybe moving it further into the article, this edit which added a gallery tagging every politician who advanced the bill as "A Republican" (which I know is a bit out there, but I am concerned seems to non-neutrally emphasize the Republican Party almost like a wall of shame despite the factual accuracy; this was later removed), noted a harmless phrasing change by an IP as "Vandalism", and the present RFC and content dispute over the lead which we are in. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 08:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks like a dispute which is better suited for WP:NPOVN. The content in question is well-supported and nobody seems to be disputing the truth of it; I don't see how accurately describing the official actions Donald Trump took while president can possibly be a BLP issue. Whether the content is due weight for the article on Florida Parental Rights in Education Act or not doesn't seem to be a BLP issue to me. And your repeated allusions to potential for libel strike me as unhelpful at best. If you really believe that article content is potentially libelous, follow the instructions on WP:LIBEL. Otherwise repeatedly gesturing at "potential" libel without any further explanation looks like an attempt to shut down debate in the vein of WP:CRYBLP to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No this is definitely a BLP issue although I agree bringing up libel is in unhelpful. Nil Einne (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it; thanks for the feedback. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 09:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guilt by association (often a problem on such pages) is botha BLP and a NPOV issue, so that needs resolvinf. Masem (t) 23:04, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IMO both the Trump and Gabbard paragraphs have way too much content on stuff that is of no direct relevance to the bill. While I'm not saying we saying we should have no additional context, 1 short sentence should be enough. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not seeing this as a BLP issue, except insofar as any dispute where living people are involved could be called a BLP issue. For example, InvadingInvader removed this gallery as "potentially libelous". It's.... a gallery of people involved with the bill. Putting a picture alongside information already in an article is not a BLP problem (nevermind "libelous"). With that, and with some of the other elements of this dispute, II seems to be saying that saying someone supported the bill or other related bills casts them in a bad light. That's only true for someone who sees it as a negative. The people we're actually talking about, and their supporters, are probably more likely to see such a gallery as unusually promotional for a neutral article. The people involved with passing the bill are involved because they think the bill is a good thing and want to be associated with it. Now, does that mean I think the gallery should be in the article? No, it takes up too much space. But not because it's libelous. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firstly, as pointed out to @InvadingInvader in this reply here when @InvadingInvader made the false claim here in an edit summary that "this a slander(sic)-fest here no matter how true it is", which is an oxymoron, given that slander is, by definition, a statement that is false, when all of the content provided for contextualization with citations that @InvadingInvader removed here are true statements of verifiable facts, the same allegation here that the article or a section thereof "could very well be too libelous and too non-neutral in its phrasing" is incorrect in the first instance because for a statement to constitute libel it must be false and all of the content provided for contextualization with citations are true statements of verifiable facts; and incorrect in the second instance because the content that @InvadingInvader objects to is in accordance with the WP:NPOV subpolicy of WP:FALSEBALANCE.
Secondly, the false claim by @InvadingInvader that content provided for contextualization "elaborated further on Trump's opinion in an inappropriate manner" is incorrect in the first instance as it did not elaborate further on the comment by Trump at all, but rather provided contextualization; and incorrect in the second instance because it is perfectly appropriate to contextualize the comment.
Thirdly, the false claim by @InvadingInvader that "While true, they are not appropriate, and by inclusion paint a potentially libelous portrait of Trump" is, again, an oxymoron, as a statement that is true cannot be libel, which is, by definition, a statement that is false. Again, all of the content provided for contextualization with citations are true statements of verifiable facts.
Fourthly, this is clearly not a WP:BLP issue, as correctly pointed out by @Caeciliusinhorto-public or @Caeciliusinhorto and @Rhododendrites; and certainly not a "BLP violation", as falsely claimed by @InvadingInvader.
Fifthly, the allegation by @InvadingInvader of "potentially biased edits" is manifestly false. This revert was explained at length here. The concern with the gallery, which @InvadingInvader recently removed with the false claim that "it is potentially libelous" which is an oxymoron, given that libel is, by definition, a statement that is false and @InvadingInvader admitted to the "factual accuracy" of the content in the opening comment here, is absurd as correctly pointed out by @Caeciliusinhorto-public or @Caeciliusinhorto and @Rhododendrites. This revert should be taken in the context of a series of reverts (see here, here, and here) that reverted vandalism by an IP vandal (see here, here, and here) that removed the templates for the short description and the redirect and removed the common names of the act, as explained to @InvadingInvader at length here.
Finally, it should be noted that these various disputes over the article began when @InvadingInvader suddenly began removing enormous portions of the article, both citations and prose (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc) and was initially reverted by @Viriditas (see here and here) because, as correctly noted by @Viriditas, the "Edit summary and massive deletions don’t align" and "edit summaries and edits not aligning" in reference to the edits by @InvadingInvader. Ever since then @InvadingInvader has been on an odd crusade of sorts in an attempt to induce a false balance in the article in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCE by sanitizing the sponsors and supporters of the act, sanitizing the false claims of the sponsors and supporters of the act, minimizing the authority of the scientific evidence refuting the false claims of the sponsors and supporters of the act, minimizing the authority of the opponents (who are experts, pediatricians, psychologists, the United Nations, etc), and constantly falsely alleging libel and slander, contrary to the definitions of those terms, for content that contextualizes the claims and comments of the sponsors and supporters of the act or even for something as simple as a gallery of the sponsors of the act, as seen above. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ever since then @InvadingInvader has been on an odd crusade of sorts in an attempt to induce a false balancein the article in violation of WP:FALSEBALANCEby sanitizing the sponsors and supporters of the act, sanitizing the false claims of the sponsors and supporters of the act, minimizing the authority of the scientific evidence refuting the false claims of the sponsors and supporters of the act, minimizing the authority of the opponents (who are experts, pediatricians, psychologists, the United Nations, etc), and constantly falsely alleging libel and slander, contrary to the definitions of those terms, for content that contextualizes the claims and comments of the sponsors and supporters of the act or even for something as simple as a gallery of the sponsors of the act, as seen above. I’m not sure if I should take this as a personal attack in the way that this comment about me is phrased. This is the first time I’ve been on this noticeboard. So failing to take into account I’ve actually written Got it, thanks for the feedback above. If anything, it’s becoming slander and libel of me. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 04:03, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With every invocation of the s-word and the l-word, you dip a toe into WP:NLT territory. Should really, y'know, stop that. Zaathras (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to Zaathras above. And I have two oft-repeated pleas: (1) stop using legal-sounding language; and (2) if you must use legal language, say "defamation" since slander is almost certainly irrelevant and gets tossed around the most. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, at the very least, if people are going to use legal terms, for the love of Odin find out what they mean. It can't be both slander and libel. Slander is oral whereas libel is written. I must admit, I haven't really read much of this section, because when people start tossing around emotionally charged words like "crusade", "sanitizing", "libel", and "slander", and especially linking them at every use as a point of emphasis, my eyes just glaze over and I think, "This sounds like a job for ANI". (I will say, however, that it never ceases to amaze me how popular Trump is with the left; a million times more popular that he ever was with people on the right. I mean, they're still talking about him!) Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One, I think this has fallen out of the biographies of living people area, and is now about POV. Maybe we should continue the discussion at WP:NPOV/Noticeboard?
Two, I think @PoliticalPoint is implying an assumption of bad faith. @InvadingInvader had previously apologized for calling others' edits slanderous and libelous. I believe that everyone (that includes InvadingInvader too!) should move on and get back to the issue at hand.
AEagleLionThing (talk) 01:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I continue to believe that the Trump and Gabbard stuff are BLP issues that could reasonably be discussed on this board. But I don't really care enough to comment further myself and I think the chance of anyone else caring is also gone. As I mentioned early on, the invocations of defamation are unhelpful. BLP intentionally goes way beyond defamation, so whether something is defamation is rarely a necessary point of discussion. And if you're going to bring up defamation, people expect some major problem, the sort of think that may require suppression or at least revdeletion. If all they see is the stuff mentioned here, you've likely lost their interest since they no longer trust you even if we put aside the WP:NLT aspect completely. Beyond that, focus would also help. There may be wider issues with the article, but probably many of them are not really the sort of thing of interest here. Notably, the question of inclusion of photos of people who were actually involved in passing or signing the bill is IMO too minor of a potential BLPvio to be worth mentioning here. If these were random photos of Trump or Gabbard sure, but not of Ron DeSantis etc. Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A new editor has deleted the controversy section for William MacAskill. His work in the Effective Altruism movement and his ties to Sam Bankman-Fried have come under major scrutiny. In my opinion, there is even more to add. Any insight would be appreciated. I think it is an important article to watch as there seems to be new news stories out every other week. Thriley (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There may be more to add, but WP:CRITS and WP:STRUCTURE are salient. Wikipedians love tending their "Controversy" sections, but they are often poorly handled and out of place. Notable controversial actions should simply be explained along with notable non-controversial acts, giving each their due weight, not shunted to a salacious section devoted to scandal. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree entirely. Thriley (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I generally agree that more content needs to be included about his association with Bankman-Fried. I added a section on MacAskill's talk page about this as well. It looks like his association with Bankman-Fried is the most notable thing about him and contributed significantly to his prominence as an academic and philosopher. It is misleading and, in effect, promotional of MacAskill to talk about him as an academic and philosopher divorced from his association with Bankman-Fried, FTX, and Alameda Research. I agree that putting the discussion of his association with FTX in a separate controversies section would probably not be best and that it should simply be worked into the rest of the article. --Nogburt (talk) 13:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[Disclaimer: I have a conflict of interest.]
This is not true: "It looks like his association with Bankman-Fried is the most notable thing about him and contributed significantly to his prominence as an academic and philosopher."
(Also see the top of this page: "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.")
As I say on the talk page, MacAskill has had a Wikipedia page since 2013 vs Bankman-Fried's being created in 2021. All of the following happened before anyone had heard of Bankman-Fried: MacAskill co-founded a social movement, he became the youngest associate professor of philosophy in the world, he gave a TED talk, he published a book reviewed by the heads of LinkedIn and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Even as recently as last August, TIME Magazine featured a story about him and his movement on their front cover and only gave Bankman-Fried a brief mention (in fact the same amount of space they gave to Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz). Schweet (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone with no preexisting familiarity with MacAskill or effective altruism, having nothing for or against him, I find very little is available on him without digging into relatively obscure sources other than his association with FTX. For better or worse, that's what he's known for and should be a top focus of an article about him. Nogburt (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what more recent sources might focus on about him. A brief search on my part seemed to indicate that's not what he's mainly known for. eg. this article and this article Tristario (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Is this an acceptable source for DOB? There was an RFC on Sherdog here that determined, Overall, the consensus is that the source should be used with caution, on a case-by-case basis. I consider the news side to be generally reliable, but I dont think the stat side comes close to satisfying WP:BLPDOB. And I'm not seeing any evidence of Aspinall's DOB being widely published by reliable sources. Pinging @Cassiopeia: as she restored the dob. – 2.O.Boxing 11:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've found a source for his DOB, but I'd still appreciate some clarification on Sherdog. – 2.O.Boxing 11:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Squared.Circle.Boxing All mma fighter DOB used as per sherdog. You can check. Cassiopeia talk 21:56, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer the original question, WP:DOB allows for dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources. Sherdog, given its cautionary status and a niche website, is not enough. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Divya Khosla Kumar DoB

There's a long running series of talk page topics at talk:Divya Khosla Kumar about her year of birth and whether it is 1981 or 1987. The page currently says it is 1987. It is under pending changes and virtually every time there is a change made to alter the date to 1981 it is reverted or not accepted with a comment along the lines of "get consensus at the talk page". The problem, as I see it is that those seeking the change to 1981 are mostly inexperienced in wiki-etiquette and aren't getting putting the case right. There seem to be a lot of sources in favour of 1981 but as I have no experience of assessing the reliability of Indian news sources and what may or may not have changed, I think it needs eyes from people with more experience in this area. Nthep (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:DOB is clear: "If multiple independent reliable sources state differing years or dates of birth in conflict, the consensus is to include all birth dates/years for which a reliable source exists, clearly noting discrepancies. In this situation, editors must not include only one date/year which they consider "most likely", or include merely a single date from one of two or more reliable sources. Original research must not be used to extrapolate the date of birth." Article talk page discussion should focus on whether the supporting sources are reliable and directly support the date. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dorian Yates

Hello, My addition of Dorian Yates as a holocaust denier was removed with the statement that the YouTube video was not a sufficient reference. The YouTube video cited is an interview with Dorian Yates in which Dorian makes the statements at approximately the 7:08 mark. [1] The interview is searchable for "holocaust." This is not a commentary on Dorian denying the holocaust, this is literally unedited video footage of Dorian denying the holocaust. It is not an unverifiable source, it is footage of Dorian saying it. There is no controversy about whether he said it, it is literally a video of him saying it. Here is the video again: Feel free to block me but I'm not going to stop. This is the truth, verifiable from his own mouth. If you choose to censor it then feel free to stand with the holocaust denier. But that is what he is. From his own mouth. Watch it yourself, it will take you less than five minutes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Critterdun42 (talkcontribs) 01:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It doesn't matter whether it is verifiable he has said it or not, if reliable sources haven't commented on it, then it isn't due for inclusion. Full stop. See also WP:RGW. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello to you. Your addition was subtracted because, indeed, youtube is not considered a reliable source. In particular, the youtube video you wish to use is a WP:Primary source, meaning it comes directly from the subject. Taking statements directly from the subject is WP:Original research, which is what WP:Secondary sources do. An encyclopedia is a WP:Tertiary source, which means we get our info secondhand. We want that secondhand commentary, because... well, let me ask you. Did he say in the video, "I am a holocaust denier"? Or are you taking what was said and inferring that he's a denier yourself? Even if it seems blatantly evident to you, that kind of judgment requires an "operation of the mind" to make the connection. We want secondary sources to make those kinds of inferences, not random people on Wikipedia, which is why we have a No Original Research policy. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the (entirely justifiable) approbation opprobrium that comes with being labelled a "Holocaust denier," we need to be very careful that any such claim in Wikipedia has strong sourcing. I agree that his commentary in this video (like saying studies "prove that no gas was used" in the gas chambers at Auschwitz) make ME perfectly comfortable calling him a Holocaust denier, but that's in "BubbaJoe123456's voice." The standards for saying that in Wikivoice are higher. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Approbation?? I'm assuming that was some sort of typo. "Opprobrium" perhaps? DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Approbation?Reply[reply]
Wow. Yeah, that's quite a word swap on my part. I definitely meant opprobrium. Yowch. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Princess royal

In this page is written that Princess Anne was “Princess Royal from 1987 until her death in 2023…”!!!!, which obviously is not accurate. 2001:818:E28E:7600:F900:74CC:3091:ABF8 (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it has been reverted by another editor [1]. Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Thompson Parker

John Thompson Parker Saying that I disapprove of the Russian "invasion" of Ukraine is absolutely false. Any reading of my eyewitness accounts to Ukraine written in the Black Agenda Report, Covert Action Magazine or Monthly Review would immediately make it clear about my position. This is slander plain and simple and I do not have time to go through your process of getting this slander taken down. I respectfully emailed your administrators asking for it to be taken down and was told that I have to go through some maze of requests, which, at 62 years old is a little difficult for me. However, it is much easier for me to call my lawyers. If you need verification of my identity simply message me on facebook and I'll provide my cell number. Please make this change as soon as possible. I will be running for public office again for U.S. Senate and this is detrimental to my campaign message. Thank you in advance. - jp Johnp9999 (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnp99999 (talkcontribs)

Mr. Parker, you linked to a nonexistent page. I'm assuming you're referring to John Parker (activist)? LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should know that we have a policy that people may not use Wikipedia to threaten legal action. If you intend to pursue any sort of action, that is between your attorneys and the Wikimedia Foundation, but please do not discuss that on-wiki. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 17:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the spirit of WP:DOLT, I looked into this, and it wasn't sourced. I don't know what their exact position is, but it doesn't appear to be able to be distilled to what was in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Gotta say, I misread this post initially - gotta be the first time someone has come to BLPN to complain that they were being unfairly accused of opposing Putin. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Patrick Stübing

Patrick Stübing is currently at AFD (submitted by me) as I believe it's a WP:BLP1E. The discussion was relisted and would be nice to get more people familiar with the BLP policy to look in at it. Maybe I am wrong about it. - Who is John Galt? 16:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Michael Pocalyko and Eden Knight

Could some experienced editors take a look at the above two articles, please? There are a few inter-related issues. A young Saudi trans woman named Eden Knight posted what has been taken as a suicide note on social media. In her posting, she named Michael Pocalyko and one of his associates as having been involved in her return to Saudi Arabia from the US, where she had been living. Based on my reading of WP:BLPCRIME, I'm not sure that these allegations should be included in Pocalyko's article. I tried discussing this on the talk page, but other editors insist that Pocalyko is a "public figure" which seems to be clearly incorrect based on the definitions in public figure.

As far as the Eden Knight article goes, I have two concerns. One is that while many media outlets are being careful by using phrases such as "feared dead" or "alleged suicide", Suicide of Eden Knight unequivocally states that she is dead. It even says "c. March 12, 2023". This appears to be a story pieced together in the media from social media posts and speculation. My second concern is that while this is a tragic event, is this alleged suicide historically significant? Sadly, tens of thousands of Americans die by suicide annually. I understand that this case has momentarily garnered some attention because Knight was trans, but I don't see it having lasting impact. I'm sorry if that sounds heartless. It isn't meant to be.

I would appreciate input from those with more experience in these areas. Thank you. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi all, as a recent contributor to both pages I thought I'd put in my two cents. The events of the past week have received significant reliable source coverage from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean (including multiple sources which detail the alleged involvement of Mr. Pocalyko). I don't think WP:BLPCRIME would apply since no criminal action is being specifically alleged in the article -- not to comment on the moral implications of those actions attributed to Mr. Pocalyko, but regardless it should be clear that the allegations are, indeed, allegations as reported by properly cited sources. The question about whether or not he is a public figure is a bit of a sideshow but I'd like to note that a prominent businessman, political candidate, and successful novelist would likely be a "public figure" for any one of those three circumstances. I think there was a misunderstanding on that point during the previous discussion.
On the subject of death date, some sources are more cautiously worded than others, but it has been reported that Eden Knight was dead no later than March 13 (when her family posted a memorial tweet). When I created Suicide of Eden Knight I wrote it as "c. 2000 - March 12, 2023" because that was the most accurate I could figure and I noted that she died "on or about" March 12 (since the suicide note may have been pre-scheduled, and the family's tweet was on the 13th, there's theoretically a bit of wiggle room but I'm pretty sure most sources are in agreement it was March 12). Yes, some journalists have written things like "feared dead" but others have gone ahead and said it -- they do the legwork in gathering information, whether it's posted publicly on social media or shared with them by parties with first-hand knowledge.
But the most important issue mentioned is the idea that Eden Knight's death was not "historically significant," by which I think you question the article's notability. WP:NOTTEMPORARY states as follows: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." That's about all I have to say about that. RexSueciae (talk) 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have not looked into the sources but a reminder that if is a dispute between sources, we need to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" per WP:DUE. This would generally mean if there are sufficient quality reliable sources which treat her death as unconfirmed and which continue to do so even after any new evidence has emerged which may have caused other sources to treat it as confirmed, we should not treat her death as confirmed in wiki voice. Instead we should reflect in the article that her death isn't universally accepted among RS. While it's generally not our place to debate why sources have did what they did, it seems fairly reasonable given the nature of this case and secrecy and lack of media freedom in Saudi Arabia and also lack of respect for human rights that lead to her situation in the first place, that sources are not willing to trust reports from there, the statements from her family or a pre-scheduled suicide note as sufficient to establish whether she has unfortunately passed. While the circumstances of this case may be fairly rare, it's far from the only time a death has remained disputed, so they may provide some guidance to how best to cover this while also giving due consideration to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've looked at some similar wiki articles for guidance -- obviously a lot of them aren't exactly on point, since the circumstances of death are indeed unusual -- but probably the closest parallel is the article on Sarah Hegazi, who died on June 14 and whose death (by suicide) was confirmed the following day by her attorney (which is similar to Eden's death on March 12 and confirmation from her family on March 13). In fact, Eden's death has been directly compared to Sarah's by L'Orient-Le Jour (please note the article is behind a paywall, though I found a kind editor who shared the full text). But I should point out that the question of death date does not rise to the level of a situation where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period, as the guidelines for the BLP Noticeboard describe. RexSueciae (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the situation with Sarah Hegazi is particularly comparable in terms of the issues relevant to BLP concerns over their reported deaths. For starters, it doesn't seem any sources dispute Hegazi's death as the OP alleges is the case of Eden Knight. There are probably good reasons for this as Hegazi's lawyer is likely a trustworthy source on her death, but Knight's family may not be for her death. (The date of death issues may be slightly similar although I'd note if we have a source sources trust on her death and who was willing to share some limited details, this source may have shared the date so even there it may not be comparable. Also you'd need to look back to earlier discussions anyway, since if there's no dispute over Hegazi's death and it's been over 2 years, it's not even a BLP issue anymore. But also date of death uncertainty can simply be handle by something like circa or similar so frankly it's not a big issue.) A more similar example might be Chhota Shakeel where I've been told some sources treat his death as confirmed (although I've never looked into these alleged sources myself). While death rumours would be the wrong word to use here, the article would still need to reflect the fact the death is disputed if that is the case in sources as claimed by the OP. There are probably stronger examples where someone's death is treated as confirmed by many sources but still disputed by enough other reliable sources that it should not be treated as definite which would be better guidance. I have no idea why you bring up the last point. This is definitely something suitable to discuss on BLPN as it concerns BLP issues. If you don't agree then please refrain from any article where BLP applies including the article on Eden Knight. Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nil Einne It's a BLP issue, maybe, but it's a relatively minor one and the only fragment of the original "issues" to have survived. First there was the question of whether any of this should be mentioned on Pocalyko's article, which appears dead in the water (and nobody has chimed in to give feedback on the question, so I think there's clear consensus that mentioning his alleged involvement is indeed allowed). Third, there was the question of whether her death is "historically significant" or will have "lasting impact," a question that I think I answered with WP:NOTTEMPORARY (and nobody has contributed there, either, so I assume my interpretation was correct). There remains only the question of whether she died on March 12, as she declared her intent to do, and while this declaration was widely reported by journalists there has been no reporting that death occurred on any other date. Not every outlet saw fit to say that she died on March 12, but some did, and the ones that did not explicitly list a date of death described her suicide note and its date. Drawing the conclusion that she died on March 12 isn't original research, it's something closer to a routine calculation or to not citing the color of the blue sky. And -- just so we're clear -- we are talking specifically about whether the parenthetical birth-and-death dates in the article's lede are an accurate reflection of the rest of the article, not about the rest of the article, which adequately sources every detail about March 12 and the events that took place on that date. RexSueciae (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another user has brought up a related issue on the talk page of Suicide of Eden Knight. The article currently says Eli Erlick publicly criticized Michael Pocalyko's involvement in the case, stating that multiple trans sex workers in the D.C. area had privately contacted her to say that Pocalyko had been a client of theirs in the past. Someone said this on Twitter and now it is on Wikipedia as fact. More eyes are required here. Thanks. ☰ Hamburger Menu (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This one has been resolved (the specific allegation was reported in a single reliable source). RexSueciae (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont think this is true, the DC trans sex working community is super tight knit and are connected thru several orgs that keep bad date lists. If there was more truth to this, these orgs + people in this community would be way more forthcoming. - a DC Trans sex worker. 2600:8806:3105:E500:35E2:6360:70C4:C000 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jake Flores (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Some input would be appreciated on if their performance in a pornographic film sourced to the Daily Dot and tweets is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's probably the wrong question to ask since the article includes multiple citations to random podcasts, and Daily Dot is no less WP:DUE than them; more so even. However, the coverage is really over the public conflict between two podcasters. Whether that should be considered BLPGOSSIP? Probably since there's no other RS covering it to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the whole article is the usual borderline notable podcaster cruft. I mentioned the BLPGOSSIP issue on the talk page. I haven't had any time to do a before check, or scour the whole article yet. Just removed the obvious contentious crap. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The citation is focusing more on them being in the adult performance. No attention is supposed to go to the feud or criticism between the podcasters or the people that bullied him for being a sex worker. The article was used as a citation showing that Jake Flores has made contributions to that community and is not supposed to be citing the random podcaster gossip included. I only bring citation because most of the other articles cited on his page have the same level or quality of information buried in internet news tabloids that have the same amount of crud. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The more contentious the information the higher the standard of source is required. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How is the information contentious? Jake Flores has admitted himself that he is a sex worker and has participated in the profession. I would understand if there was debate on whether or not he was involved in the field, however the person that the article is about has directly stated their pride and consent in being involved. Please specify what aspects are contentious or how they are contentious. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tristario just did an excellent job of explaining this on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate the input they had, and also appreciate you linking to it. I just replied to them as well citing the fact that the leak aspect is regarding the right wing bullies that targeted the act and took advantage. The adult performance that he actually did and what I was trying to include is information that Jake Flores is open and up-front about. Hence myself citing his own words. If possible, are there any samples or documents that would demonstrate what needs to be presented? Admittedly I have never had issues with other pages or persons documenting their sex-positivity or pride so I am quite surprised that there is much hesitation for the addition of this info for this page, especially when the information is directly from the performer. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also want to add, regarding the term "contentious" that one of the first lines of information on his page is already contentious and cites information that is not a high standard. The line "Flores identifies himself as politically left" is debatable and the cited information does not even include that detail. Flores frequently identifies as far left, meanwhile his opponents call him communist or "dirt-bag left" which is seen as a right leaning term. The podcasts cited have no detail at all that says this. Meanwhile the information I presented, stating that he has been involved in adult performance and takes pride in this fact, is directly correlated to the cited info, along with being less contentious since it is objective fact contrary to a vague statement claiming their alignment in the political spectrum. JeremiahSalvacion2 (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article is highly biased against Swami Vishwananda especially in the tone of the language used as compared to other biographies of famous people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:22C9:9900:DDD6:9127:D923:9A5E (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually we do need some eyes on this one. It looks like this article went through the AfC process. I think, in an order to avoid being too promotional, a number of allegations that offend BLP were included in the article, and more have been added over time. I am largely unfamiliar with the Hindu faith. I think, but am not certain, that the subject is notable. From where I sit now though, I'd guess there's only a handful of reliable sources in this article, and I doubt they support all the contentious claims here - from the lede the subject is called a godman, and there is a controversies section with allegations including theft of Christian relics, "disturbing the peace of the dead", sexual misconduct, and more. All of this is referenced, but many of the links are German, a language I do not know. I don't like to rely on machine translations, so it would be great a German competent editor could help evaluate the sources so we can decide what stays. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The subject of the article, a college professor, was accused of sexual misconduct by a former colleague and subsequently fired by his employer. Several WP:SPA accounts have been created to remove material regarding the allegations, most recently to remove the word "rape," which is explicitly mentioned in the NBC source. I believe that the article in it's current state adheres to WP:BLP, but I wanted to bring it here to solicit additional input given the nature of the allegations and events. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:RSSM, the Columbia Chronicle refs may not be the best in the BLP-crime context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given that this was an on-campus event, and given that the school put out an official statement, I think it's a decent source for this purpose. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. There should be stronger sources for WP:BLPCRIME and by extension WP:PUBLICFIGURE if he is one. What other sources are out there? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The NBC source is the only one I've found so far that details the victim's allegations. I was initially concerned with what appeared to be conceted whitewashing efforts, but on the other hand I'd prefer err on the conservative side of WP:BLPCRIME; perhaps a few sentences summarizing the dismissal along with the reasons but keeping it brief. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem with the NBC citation is that it purposely did not name him. I have shortened the paragraph per BLPBALANCE and added a Smithsonian Magazine citation.[2] However, I am still concerned whether the mention of the sexual assault allegations satisfies WP:BLPCRIME since the Smithsonian citation only mentions he was terminated for violating the college's sexual harassment policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, good point; I missed that in the NBC citation. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I may reluctantly join in (full disclosure, I knew Weller quite a few years ago, and, well, best to keep it at that). Keeping the word "rape" in the article seems undue, as it would affect anyone's life and livelihood without being applied and adjudicated in court. As a BLP accusation, even if there was personal hurt and evidence behind it, such a blanket statement stands out on the page as if it were a proven fact with a conviction. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I endorse Morbidthoughts's treatment of the material here - a brief mention of the complaint, the investigation, and the results are all that are warranted. While I don't think it hurts anything, I don't find the one line mention in the Smithsonian article to be helpful. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Obaid Al-Ketbi

This AfC article is completly made by PradeepLogik (talk · contribs) who imo is an WP:SPA as their only contribution was creating and editing the AfC. There is potentially some WP:COI considering that the article is full of fluffery and the user had the name of their advertising business as their username and was asked to change it. The article barely uses any sources and is full of grammar mistakes. The user account doesn't exsist anymore, so I couldn't talk to the user about the issues. COuld you please look into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyvagaba (talkcontribs) 11:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can attempt to communicate with the editor at User talk:PradeepLogik. Cullen328 (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iga Świątek

Iga Świątek

In the "Iga Świątek" Wikipedia biography, under the "2023: Twelfth title, 50th consecutive week at No. 1" subheading within the "Professional Career" section, there is a statement that reads "Later it emerged that Świątek had launched into a 5 minute 34 second profanity laden rant at start of tournament an off-record conversation that had been captured on tape and leaked onto social media in which Świątek complained about excessively negative coverage of her, the rant included at least 88 obscenities according to the Las Vegas Sun. Swiatek said that she used "wholly inappropriate language" to describe the media coverage of her and she said she was sorry for her choice of words, yet stands by the content of her message."

This statement appears to be entirely false, and internet research of content mentioned in the statement yields no results. The sourced article following the statement from includes no mention of any "profanity-laden rant captured on tape and leaked onto social media." It appears this statement was falsely included, either intentionally or accidentally, possibly because the writer of the statement found a tabloid journalism source that included these damaging comments. I have removed this statement from the "Iga Świątek" biography page, as it appears to be false and may fall within the category of libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolskaGola8 (talkcontribs) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like this has been taken care of, and the user who added the info has been blocked. A quick check of that user's contributions seem to warrant some deeper scrutiny of their edits, however, if anyone has the time. Zaereth (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Properly paraphrasing source for Jo Boaler

An editor has raised concerns about whether or not a particular parsing does or does not raise BLP issues in the article Jo Boaler. The specific source is here and the relevant portion of the article being summarized is:

Conrad said he spent spring break reading not only the framework but also many of the citations from which the authors justified their recommendations. “To my astonishment, in essentially all cases, the papers were seriously misrepresented” and in some cases “even had conclusions opposite to what was said” in the framework. The misrepresentations of the neuroscience of math comprehension, de-tracking in favor of heterogeneous student grouping, the use of assessments and acceleration call into question the recommendations. Writers, he said, “should not be citing papers they do not understand to justify their public policy recommendations” fitting their perspectives.

The content cited to that source was:

Conrad highlighted many cases where he said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted cited sources, presenting conclusions contrary to the underlying research.

The editor Generalrelative has taken issue with the use of the word many in this content and removed that word twice.

Questions: Does inclusion of the word many raise any BLP issues in the article? Is there a better way to summarize the content of the article that is more in line with BLP policy? Thank you. TheMissingMuse (talk) 06:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to clarify: I am happy with the sentence: Conrad highlighted cases where he said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted cited sources, presenting conclusions contrary to the underlying research.
For a bit of background, it may be worth noting that over the past couple months TheMissingMuse has been re-adding content to this BLP that they had originally added while editing as an IP, and which Primefac had removed as BLP violations before semi-protecting the page. I've been trying to apply a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer here, since I see that there is legitimate controversy among the mathematics community over Boaler's work, but I fear that TheMissingMuse may be overshooting the mark in terms of tone, due balance, and accurately representing cited sources. More eyes on the situation would indeed be helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 06:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it will do you well to WP:AGF. Please speak to any specific BLP issues that you have with the article. If you have any BLP issues with any edit that I've made, either under my account or under the previous IP edits, please address them directly. TheMissingMuse (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've stated my case at Talk:Jo Boaler#Conrad's criticism. Now let's let others weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 06:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how this secondary reporting of the criticism is WP:DUE given this is not a peer-reviewed academic journal nor even a newspaper article. Instead, this is a niche education article written by an editor of Not only that, Conrad does not explicitly criticise Boaler. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure peer reviewed academic journals are the minimum bar for BLPs. That said, I don't have a strong send of Ed Source and it's use for BLP. Ed Source is certainly used as a source for other articles and BLPs on wikipedia. But maybe a better source is appropriate for this article. There is plenty of coverage of Boaler from more mainstream sources. For example: The New Yorker also discusses Boaler's role in the development of the CAMF as well as Conrad's critique. Boaler has been working on this for the last 5+ years and there are plenty of references that speak to her role in developing the framework. Likewise there are plenty of sources that cover reception of the framework. One difficult aspect with this article is that editors affiliated with Boaler (and possibly Boaler herself) have been active on the page. TheMissingMuse (talk) 15:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It should be no surprise to expect the WP:WEIGHT of academic criticism to be sourced to peer-reviewed academic publications (WP:SOURCETYPES). Strive for better sources. Use those sources that focus on Boaler and her works. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the contrary, this goes against policy. WP:PRIMARY clearly indicates that primary sources, are not good sources for BLP articles. Rather secondary sources from mainstream publications are preferred. The WP:SOURCETYPES clearly says when available academic sources are preferred. The California Math Framework is not a scholarly work, and as such there is little expectation that it would be covered in a peer reviewed journal. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Criticism of Boaler (not by Boaler) published or acknowledged in peer-reviewed academic journals are not primary materials! You say she has been at this for 5+ years and there's no coverage of this in academic journals? Even those that cover K-12 education? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seriously? [3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like you are making the same mistake with respect to primary sources. If someone writes something critical of Boaler, that person is the primary source for the criticism. Here is a better search that removes the non-relevant articles: 2019 and after, for "California mathematics framework". You can see four articles linked, none of which are peer reviewed. TheMissingMuse (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You should read WP:SECONDARY, the part about "It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.". Why limit the search to 2019 when you say she's been at this for 5+ years. [4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I've read WP:SECONDARY many times over the years. The situation remains that if there is criticism of a source, the author of the criticism is the primary source for that criticism. Regardless, peer reviewed journal publications are by no means the only sources that an be used for BLP articles. TheMissingMuse (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Critical articles published in peer-reviewed journals are still secondary sources for the purposes of this discussion because they are an analysis and evaluation of Boaler's works; the primary source being the Boaler's writings or the Framework itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I have to concur with Morbidthoughts there. If a scientist does a medical study, that's the primary source and we can't use it to support the claims. When a peer-review journal does a critique of that study, that's twice removed, which makes it a secondary source. That's what we want for an encyclopedia, is those peer reviews. Now, it may be that they're opinion/editorials in the strictest sense of the word, but it's the type of opinions we want. Another example would be a movie, which is a primary source. We want movie reviews, which are secondary. Opinions though they may be, they are good sources for those opinions by trusted people in the field. Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we are far afield from the topic at hand. No one has offered up any peer reviewed source here for consideration. The sources discussed so far are from EdSource and The New Yorker. I think we are all agreed that the EdSource citation is a bit niche for a BLP, and that has been removed from the article. Is there any feedback on The New Yorker cite? TheMissingMuse (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just a response to what you said above, which I found to be a flawed argument. If we couldn't print opinions because they are somehow primary sources for those opinions, we wouldn't be able to print opinions at all. An opinion about a subject is not a primary source for that subject. Secondary sources give analyses and interpretations of subjects, which is exactly what we want. That said, I haven't been following this too closely, but maybe I'll give a deeper look in the New Yorker when I have a bit more time. Zaereth (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The New Yorker cite is fine if the controversy is recent and ongoing, which would deter journal coverage. From what I understand the framework is still under revision and has not been adopted yet. Does anyone have access to this article which came out today?[5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can get access by signing up and creating an account. TheMissingMuse (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[Stupid edit conflict.} I had to unindent this because it's going right off the edge of my screen. Ok, I tried the New Yorker link, and all I got was a page that said, "Surely, this isn't the page you were looking for". So that link didn't work for me. Maybe some kind of 404 error? To be perfectly frank, I have no idea what this is all really about, which is why I haven't been following it. The reliability of a source depends a great deal on the specific information that source is providing. By reading this discussion, I am unclear on what specific information (if any) is in dispute, and how that relates to the source(s) in question. Is this all about the word "many"? If so, do the sources use the word "many" (or one of its many synonyms)? Or do they give many examples? Do they in any way say or imply that "many" is a good word to use? These are things I need to know before I can even begin to evaluate a source. Plus I need working links to that source, and preferably diffs I can go check.

It's a common problem when people come here that they don't often explain the dispute too well. It's hard, when you understand what's going on in your own mind, to explain it to others so that they will understand, and the article is a good example of that. For example, we talk a lot about this "framework" without ever once explaining to the reader what the word "framework" even means in this context, so it's no wonder that the article is hard to follow. (Writing is hard work, and I think the biggest problem in math education, having lived through it myself, is that math teachers just don't know how to explain it in plain English; a problem shared by many academics, and Wikipedia articles are often a reflection of that. I was in my 20s before I finally leaned where pi came from, and after months of wading through incomprehensible math books trying to learn trigonometry, I finally got all the info I needed from a single paragraph --in a dictionary-- of all places. Math is a language in and of itself; an alien language that few can translate into English.) Normally, I would just go to the history to see the dispute in action, but even that is full of way too many little edits to wade through, so I really have no idea what this is all about nor how it's relevant to this noticeboard. Zaereth (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the link to The New Yorker. It must have been a weird edit fail. I think I've fixed the URL. TheMissingMuse (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the dispute, yes it's primarily about the use of the word many. However, I think the feedback that is not a sufficiently high quality source is good feedback. I've removed that source from the article, preferring The Chronicle of Higher Education and The New Yorker articles. TheMissingMuse (talk) 00:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, so I assume in the source you're referring to this line to support the word "many"? "I encountered a lot of assertions that were hard to believe and were justified via citations to other papers. So I read those other papers..." The phrase "a lot" is a synonym for "many", so on the surface it does seem to support that word. But words are meaningless without context, and in this source he says he saw a lot of things in the document that seemed unbelievable, and read the citations concluding they had been misrepresented, but that's all he says. He doesn't actually highlight any of those cases anywhere in the source. So, while I think the word "many" is a perfectly good synonym for "a lot", we really need to rephrase that to better match what the source actually says. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was my original point (here), though Zaereth has stated it more clearly than I did. Generalrelative (talk) 01:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The exact quote from the article is above in the original message, excerpted here for clarity: "Conrad said he spent spring break reading not only the framework but also many of the citations from which the authors justified their recommendations." Regardless, this is a WP:DEADHORSE at this point. I've already removed that source and associated content from the article. TheMissingMuse (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome, thanks for being amenable to compromise. Your recent changes look good to me, btw. Generalrelative (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah. Exactly. He doesn't actually highlight any of the cases there, does he. I would love it if he did, because then I could go look at them myself, but he doesn't. So saying he highlighted them is not correct. He also doesn't present any conclusion to contradict any of the research, he merely says the sources contradict the document, so that's not altogether true either. It a misrepresentation of the source, ironically enough. I'm not saying that the whole thing needs to be removed from the article. To the contrary, it seems like a simple matter of rephrasing it to match what the source actually says. Perhaps, "Conrad said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted many cited sources." There. Now it says what the source does and no more, plus you get the word "many" in there. Zaereth (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The primary source does exactly what you suggest. It's a report from Brian Conrad a Stanford professor. TheMissingMuse (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You mean, the primary source says, "Conrad said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted many cited sources." Well, then that would be plagiarism i suppose, except I've never read this primary source of which you speak. We'd probably have to rephrase it. That was the only suggestion I made. Or, are you referring to my observation that he doesn't highlight anything or make any conclusions? (See? You know what you mean, so the words make sense to you, but to communicate that to others you have to see it from the reader's point of view. See: theory of mind.) If he has a blog or his own personal website, then that's a self-published source. Those are only good for a very limited type of info. In writing an encyclopedia article, we also have to consider due weight and balance, which is determined by a preponderance of reliable, secondary sources. Without that rule, Wikipedia articles would be a dumping ground for every cherry-picked fact and opinion people could find to support their own conscious and unconscious biases. We rely on secondary sources to do any cherry picking for us. We just use what the secondary sources give us. Zaereth (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked the source and it does indeed appear to be self-published. That can be fine in other cases if the author is a subject-matter expert (as Conrad is), but not for a BLP. In any case, TheMissingMuse has removed the content in question and agreed to back away from the dead horse, so it really does look like our work is done here. Let's end this on an amicable note and be glad that we've managed to improve the article, yeah? Generalrelative (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

David Hundeyin

There seems to be a concerted effort, encouraged by the subject himself (see twitter, to remove an embarrassing piece of biographical information relevant to the subject. These have resulted in repeated vandalism on the page by those intent on keeping the page hagiographical rather than factual and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you explain this edit of yours[6] that was not directly supported by the citation and was reverted? Do you have a connection to these people, accusations, or events? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no direct connection to the people or event -- except as an observer. I'm a Nigerian, but the subject -- a prominent online personality -- appears intent on editing his own biography to fit a certain narrative that goes against Wikipedia's rules, hence my interest. The edit is supported by the citation. (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it doesn't. Reread the cited article again: "The James Currey Fellowship in Oxford was actually offered to another writer before being given to Mitterand Okorie." Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Academics bickering on the internet? Shocking and unprecedented. But not really worthy of this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no knowledge of this person but it seems there are two sides that both want to add/remove content irrespective of the sources. I'm particularly concerned about edits such as this one [7]. I think it would be good if more people could keep half an eye on it. Cakelot1 (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He is a polarising journalist that's pissed off a lot of people in that country so no surprise there. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. One of them has been blocked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been expanding the article with sources that I could find so that his biography remains WP:BLPBALANCEd, and not just about his controversy at Cambridge. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jon Moss (formerly of Culture Club)

This musician is in the news today, following the settlement of a court case.

Sources 2,3,4 and 5 of his BLP, which cover the first half of the section of our article related to his early life, are either not reliable, or dead. Other material in there appears to be uncited.

Is blanking of those lines appropriate? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe so, yes. This is already cited, so we can probably continue to use anything from there for uncontroversial statements of fact that aren't self-serving. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done, thanks --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chloe Cole has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Question of whether the full lawsuit title, published by a reliable source and inclusive of legal name, should be included in the article. Slywriter (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see my entry today on the talk page re: recently added details of her divorce settlement which seem to be derogatory toward her ex-husband Quincy Jones - similar info has been added at least once before! User who added it again should be warned. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have restored your edits and notified the user about this discussion. The sourcing that supported their edits are not reliable sources; one was even circular. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To answer the other question that you posted on the talk page, her autobiography was published by Bra böcker, a reputable Swedish publisher that presumably does its fact checking. The main issue is whether we can actually verify the extensive details since the book is not easily accessible as say Quincy's autobiography and the detail could be seen as WP:BLPGOSSIP. Most English RS I could find focus on Quincy and really only mention Ulla as his second wife and the mother of two of his children. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLPs created by User:Davidcannon (un-archived)

Note that I have manually unarchived this thread. See also WP:ANI#Davidcannon's_BLPs. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)>Reply[reply]

For some background, reading this conversation is useful context. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created 600+ articles, many of them which are BLPs. From a brief spotcheck, I'm not sure going to ANI is the best course of action (and honestly the idea terrifies me when it's not really something I've tried to do before). Two of the articles they've created have recently been deleted: Laisa Digitaki and Samuela Matakibau. However, the brief spotcheck has somewhat convinced me that not all of their biographies are like this. There does seem to be issues every once and awhile in regards to controversial unsourced information [8]. 600+ articles is a lot of articles to check and I thought that maybe here would be the better place to fix any problems that may be identified. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon further inspection, some articles that could likely use a second set of eyes include:
  1. Ben Padarath
  2. Angie Heffernan - done
  3. Sakiusa Tuisolia - done
  4. Viliame Naupoto
  5. Willem Ouweneel
  6. Jimi Koroi - done
  7. Pita Driti
  8. Ballu Khan
  9. Peter Ridgeway - links added
  10. Imraz Iqbal - done
  11. Richard Naidu
  12. Meli Bainimarama
  13. Litia Qionibaravi - done
  14. Viliame Seruvakula
  15. Vyas Deo Sharma
  16. Akuila Yabaki
  17. Saula Telawa
  18. Jone Baledrokadroka
  19. Naomi Matanitobua - links added
  20. Jale Baba
  21. Sakeasi Butadroka
  22. Kolinio Rokotuinaceva
  23. Lagamu Vuiyasawa
  24. Asesela Ravuvu
  25. Asenaca Caucau
  26. Simione Kaitani
  27. Kenneth Zinck
  28. Ofa Swann - done
  29. Injimo Managreve
  30. Kaliopate Tavola
  31. Ateca Ganilau
  32. Petero Mataca
  33. Rakuita Vakalalabure
  34. Daniel Fatiaki
  35. James Ah Koy

There may be more. I'm going to be taking a break for now. As I previously stated, more eyes and input is welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also pinging The Wordsmith because of the aforementioned discussion that started this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Davidcannon's speciality on Wikipedia was Fiji and its unstable politics. As far as I am aware, he created well-sourced articles (but with embedded external links rather than references), but the links were mostly to Fijian news sites, and many years later, the links no longer worked and Davidcannon deleted them. Some of these links could be restored using web archives. For example, looking at the just-deleted article Laisa Digitaki, the references to are recoverable, but references to and appear not to be. I know there's a bot which can recover dead links, but for it to run, we would have to first restore the dead links preferably without removing subsequent improvements to the article, and we would end up with an article which has not been substantially updated for many years with some unrecoverable links and dubious notability. I certainly do not have the interest in Fijian politics to want to tackle this myself. Two editors currently active in that area are @IdiotSavant: and @Thiscouldbeauser:, would you have any interest in working on such articles? As you're not administrators and can't see the deleted article we're discussing, perhaps we could move it to draft space and blank it if you're sufficiently interested to assess it. (I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit (but he did not actually do so upon reviewing the edit), so I want to make it clear I have no intention of undeleting this article without a clear consensus to do so.)-gadfium 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest raising it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fiji, which does have some active users (people who did bios of MPs elected in the 2022 Fijian general election would be a good start). I'm currently doing a bit of cleanup for that project, and focusing on BLPs at the moment. I'd noticed that lots were created by Davidcannon, but not the removal of dead sources. I'll start checking for them, and see what I can do to restore them. Though there is an underlying issue with source availability for that period of Fijian history - major media outlets don't have archives going back that far (some having scrubbed them to avoid trouble with the military regime), and we've also lost the East-West Centre's Pacific Islands Report mirror of news coverage. Some of the latter is archived, but its very haphazard.
WRT the specific article, there appear to be sources available on RNZ. -- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the similarity of content, references for Laisa Digitaki should be available on Angie Heffernan.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you mean articles about Fijian politicians? Sure, I can create a few of them in the coming weeks if I find enough good info. I haven't created articles about people themselves before though. A quick Google search for Laisa Digitaki comes up with a deleted Wikipedia page, a LinkedIn profile, social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) and articles about her from generally unreliable sites (i.e FijiLeaks and Fiji News Wars, the latter is a blog hosted on Blogspot which I only found out about today and the former being a site is often critical of Frank Bainimarama and claims to be like WikiLeaks), as well as other random stuff, e.g an e-book on Google Books about her and several other coup-era Fijian politicians and two random TikTok videos. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its more a case of trawling existing articles, checking whether links have been deleted, restoring them, and adding other references as required (oh, and adding them to appropriate WikiProjects, because not everything seems to be appropriately tagged). Required skills: using the wayback machine and reference templates, and searching appropriate news sources (Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Village, RNZ).-- IdiotSavant (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There was still this content that I removed after you striked as Angie Heffernan "done" [9]. At least from what I've seen, I'm concerned that some of these articles wouldn't follow WP:BLPCRIME. An example is Ben Padarath – he was never elected as a politician (WP:NPOL) and there's a whole section with mostly unreferenced content detailing his alleged crimes. It's been like that since creation [10]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's definitely a problem there with undue focus (I assume because of when it was written), but the article may also need expansion - there's stuff he has been convicted of (see here and here), but its not in the article. OTOH, that's not especially notable, and honestly barring the sedition charge, he's not someone I'd remotely consider creating an article for if there wasn't one already (so maybe he's a candidate for AfD?). Regarding sedition, where there doesn't seem to be a conviction yet, is there a guideline for political crimes? Because for a lot of Fijian political figures there's a history of oppression by the military regime, sedition or equivalent charges brought and later dropped, and not including them would be leaving out something very significant.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gadfium "I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit". This is well before I started serious wiki-editing. However, a more recent counter-example is Micaela Schäfer, which I deleted per WP:G10 / WP:BLPDELETE and was subsequently restored by SoWhy who cleaned it up and fixed all the BLP violations. There was a thread at AN running at the time, where I explicitly stated I had no issue with SoWhy doing this. So I think that's your answer - ask if The Wordsmith is okay with you restoring the article for the purposes of fixing the BLP issues, and if they are, then just do it.
A further point that's worth mentioning is that WP:BLPPROD originally only applied for articles created after the policy was introduced in 2010. Then, in 2017, this grandfather clause was removed by consensus. So at the time Davidcannon removed the dead news links, he might have reasonably assumed BLPPROD didn't apply because the article was verified at one point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We used to have a grandfather clause? Are there any others that are still in effect? It seems bizzare to me that we could ever decide anything by consensus and then go "but it doesn't apply to any articles created before now". I'm interested in the rationales that were used at the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? for further reading. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to briefly clarify that, it was a very unusual situation that led to the grandfather clause being created. The BLPPROD process was created because we had an absurd nightmare of something like 80K completely unreferenced BLPs, and one camp was mass summary deleting them while the other thought we should try sourcing them all instead of deleting. As part of the compromise for dealing with them, the grandfather clause was established to prevent people from just tagging them all at once while the effort to source them was underway. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ritchie333 and Gadfium: I do object to restoring the history of those two articles either in mainspace or anywhere else, since the contents of them are bad enough that they'd be a gross BLP vio in any namespace. Pretty much all they covered was allegations of crimes committed and being investigated. What I can do is email the deleted versions (and the sources used, if you like) to any editor interested in rewriting. I have no issue with a bio (or even a stub) for those subjects being recreated if it can comply with our policies, just not the history of those two. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone through 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial, largely written by David, and the amount of unsourced depictions of underage sexual activity are beyond the pale, and if a new editor did that, I'd revert and redact it. And to make it abundantly clear, my issue here is adherence to WP:BLPSOURCES and our longstanding policy is that unsourced claims involving living persons should be removed - I have no opinion on the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like his contributions were mostly in 2004.[11] Were the inline sourcing requirements different then? Was he an administrator then? Wikipedia policies and BLP (if it existed) enforcement may have been more lax then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. BLP was first started in 2005 by Slim Virgin, who was probably one of the greatest Wikipedians to ever exist and someone I very much admired and looked up to, and even then it took many years to build and refine this policy into what it has become today. Rules were definitely much more lax then (it was basically the Wild West in those days) and not many people gave much thought to the real-world repercussions of the things we do here. Wikipedia has grown up a lot since those days, but there is still a lot from back then that needs to be cleaned up. Thank god we had someone with the knowledge and foresight of Slim Virgin. She has been sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had quite a few arguments with SlimVirgin back in the day, but BLP was one of her greatest contributions. I do know it wasn't taken as seriously as it is today at first. We had Rachel Marsden in 2006, Badlydrawnjeff in 2007, and Footnoted quotes in 2008 which especially strengthened it by creating BLP Special Enforcement. Even until late 2009/early 2010 there was a strong minority who felt that completely unsourced BLPs weren't a problem and it led to that mass deletion and the establishment of WP:BLPPROD. Yes, Slim will be missed but she helped get us where we are today. I probably wouldn't go bringing Davidcannon's articles up at the dramaboards since it was absolutely a different time with looser standards, but we do need to clean up the mess now by making them conform to Wikipedia's current BLP standards or summarily deleting them. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe pin this to keep it from archiving again until the list has a chance to be seen by more people? Valereee (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. I had my own disagreements with some of Wikipedia's policies when I first started, in particular the whole "Verifiability not truth" phrase (which I still think is very poorly worded) but I had a great discussion with Sarah in which she explained the reasoning behind this seemingly contradictory statement, and in her reasoning I agreed entirely. I actually never had much interaction with her aside from that, but over the years you get to know people even if you don't interact. The first article I worked on was the flashtube article, which was mostly just a bunch of really plausible-sounding bunk that people made up because it sounded good in their heads. Same with the tempering (metallurgy) article, or the basic fighter maneuvers article. They were dreadful, but most Wikipedia articles started out that way. It was new territory and people were creating articles by the thousands each day. It was a very different time. I wouldn't waste a lot of energy assigning blame or shame. Like anything, we just have to tackle these things as we find them and move on to the next. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She sounds amazing. I don't think I ever personally interacted with her, but I'm familiar with the username. I had no idea that she was instrumental in starting WP:BLP, we really should have a "history of Wikipedia" outlining the major changes we've experienced throughout time. I've noticed some stuff has changed since I started editing in 2018, I can only imagine the scale at which other who have been here for longer experience that. I agree that tackling this and moving on is the best course of action. If I had known that I could've just unarchived the thread, I don't think I would've started the ANI one. I just wanted to make sure these issues didn't disappear into a void and then someone else a decade later would be here to say something. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She did some great things, but she could be absolutely infuriating to argue with. She also had a flair for the dramatic and a habit of unnecessary escalation, sandbagging discussions she didn't like and even wheel warring; there's a reason she has at least 3 or 4 Arbcom cases named after her personally. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like RfA was in June 2004. And yes, sourcing requirements were far different then. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that I've used Template:DNAU at the top of this thread to prevent archiving; once the thread is concluded anybody can just remove that line to allow the bots to archive it as normal. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Reason I Jump

In the article The Reason I Jump: Poorly sourced and defamatory language regarding Naoki Higashida, the author of the book The Reason I Jump. Calls the book, written in first person, a "biography" rather than "autobiography" without conclusive evidence that the author in fact did not write it. Says the book is "attributed to" him rather than written by him, without conclusive evidence. Cites one critical research source but does not cite many existing opposing research sources.

I tried to correct this language but was immediately reverted by user Nordog. I reverted to my version and received a warning message from Nordog that I was violating the NPOV policy. I added discussion showing how the original violated NPOV policy and I was bringing it up to standards. Nordog did not reply to this point and did not make any changes in the "attribution" language to remove biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhipup (talkcontribs) 19:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Autobiography" is a subcategory of "biography", so it is not false to call it a biography whether the subject wrote it or not. Given that the authorship of the book has been challenged, we should not be putting it in Wikipedia's voice that NH is the author, but barring further revelation, should also not be put in our voice that he is not. It looks as if Nordog is navigating that appropriately. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]