Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
This article has an inconsistent use of pronouns to describe either the performer or the character being portrayed, depending on the section being read.
The current version of this article has female pronouns in the introductory text and male pronouns in the biography section. It is unclear from initial reading which gendered pronoun should be used, or whether multiple pronouns should apply to this person and used interchangeably.
If this is an example of kayfabe, the article may need to be rewritten to provide greater clarity as the title currently states "performer" but the biography section may be referencing a persona, which can cause confusion.
Furthermore, the edit history for this article shows a repeated altering of the gender/pronouns for this article by third parties, but only in certain sections and which are often quickly reverted - further adding to the confusion. See the Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history section for details.
This is not a request for deletion, but someone with greater knowledge of this person may need to provide accurate, up-to-date information to prevent repeated edits by overzealous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.83.25 (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 17, 2024 (UTC)
I had some questions about the use of primary sources like birth certificates/records or marrage certificates/records which are publically accessible via a state government (Government of Goa) website called "Goa Online" [1]. Another editor placed the non-primary source needed tags [2] [3]. I had removed them emphasizing on WP: PRIMARY, more details can be read at the talk page Talk:Irene Vaz#Non primary source needed tag (Please do note that I personally found records such as these more reliable than secondary or primary sources.) Rejoy2003(talk) 14:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Have you read through WP:BLPPRIMARY? I'd be very cautious about using primary sources like this. First issue is how to confirm the record is for this person, not someone else named Irene Vaz? Using good secondary sources that will have done that vetting via an editor is far, far safer and reduces the amount of personal details potentially exposed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ravensfire I have confirmed the birth name and dates via a different secondary source like books, publications etc. Hence I'm 100% sure that they both it belongs to the same person. Also added to this the source isn't that easy to access since it requires all the personal details of the person first, not to forget you need registration to access this site. The problem here is also not the birth dates or birth place which have been confirmed via a secondary source. It is more of use of such these source for BLPs Rejoy2003(talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any secondary sources discussing these primary sources, or supporting the underlying claims, in the article. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear that public documents like these should not be used, except when discussed by secondary sources. If you're intending to use the primary sources as supplementary documents, than you need to include the secondary sources that discuss them. Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodroar Hi, I have added the source at the end of the paragraph. I'm afraid it's an offline citation so you won't be able to verify it yourself. However leaving that aside, if we see BLP:PRIMARY it does also state that
Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
. So to summarise, have I verified the subject's birth names dates etc via a secondary source? yes. Am I using this source as an additional reference to provide more details about the person? Yes. Does this primary source whatsoever comprises the privacy of the subject? No, (Why? because you need registration and have to be a sound educated person who knows to how to use this website and service.) This comes back to WP:PRIMARY, which actually does support my argument. So do you think it is okay to use this source as for additional context keeping in mind there's are/is secondary sources that back the reliability of the subject's birth or other details? Rejoy2003(talk) 15:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)- Are you referring to "Mazarello, Wilson (10 March 2018). Konkani Khell Tiatr. Panaji, Goa: Dalgado Konknni Akademi. pp. 124–125, 127." Can you provide more information about this source? How does it discuss the primary source ("Registration of birth") being used? Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I won't go completely in detail, but in a nutshell it provides biographical information about the person. It tells the birth dates of the person, their parents name which I cross verified and only then I used the primary source. To be honest, I have been using the above mentioned website personally for several years, it is quite reliable I'd say. I'd use it for independent research for my personal work. Rejoy2003(talk) 16:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- As JustAnotherCompanion just said, I think there's a misunderstanding here. We can't cite personal details about living persons to a "Registration of birth" (birth certificate). That's WP:BLP policy. However, if reliable, secondary sources discuss that primary document (the birth certificate) itself, then we can include the birth certificate only to supplement the secondary sources. For example, plenty of secondary sources discuss Barack Obama's birth certificate at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Because Obama is a living person, we should not cite any information to the birth certificate. But we do include the birth certificate because it may help our readers understand more as they read the article and secondary sources.
- So I have to ask again: does the "Konkani Khell Tiatr" source discuss Irene Vaz's birth certificate? Or are you using it to support claims like Vaz's birth date? Woodroar (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the source does discuss the birth certificate, could you briefly summarize the context of that? Is there something odd or unusual there? Same for the marriage certificate. If all that's needed there is that they were married and to whom, a secondary source is more than adequate and preferred. Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like you've used the goaonline Birth/Death certificate lookup in multiple articles - [4], they made need to be reviewed as well and the primary sources considered for removal. Even if the person has died, birth and death dates are best suited for secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the person has died, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. Rejoy2003(talk) 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- And nevertheless it is still better to use secondary sources in that case. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article doesn't mention her death, but if it was recent (the last year or so) then BLP policies still apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the person has died, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. Rejoy2003(talk) 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like you've used the goaonline Birth/Death certificate lookup in multiple articles - [4], they made need to be reviewed as well and the primary sources considered for removal. Even if the person has died, birth and death dates are best suited for secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodroar It is only birth dates, birth names, parents detals that have been mentioned. I have then verified it with the the birth record, since I found the same parents and other information of the person leaving no room for duplicate persons. Rejoy2003(talk) 18:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- If all of that information is in a reliable, secondary source, then just use the secondary source. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the source does discuss the birth certificate, could you briefly summarize the context of that? Is there something odd or unusual there? Same for the marriage certificate. If all that's needed there is that they were married and to whom, a secondary source is more than adequate and preferred. Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I won't go completely in detail, but in a nutshell it provides biographical information about the person. It tells the birth dates of the person, their parents name which I cross verified and only then I used the primary source. To be honest, I have been using the above mentioned website personally for several years, it is quite reliable I'd say. I'd use it for independent research for my personal work. Rejoy2003(talk) 16:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are you referring to "Mazarello, Wilson (10 March 2018). Konkani Khell Tiatr. Panaji, Goa: Dalgado Konknni Akademi. pp. 124–125, 127." Can you provide more information about this source? How does it discuss the primary source ("Registration of birth") being used? Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Woodroar Hi, I have added the source at the end of the paragraph. I'm afraid it's an offline citation so you won't be able to verify it yourself. However leaving that aside, if we see BLP:PRIMARY it does also state that
- I don't see any secondary sources discussing these primary sources, or supporting the underlying claims, in the article. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear that public documents like these should not be used, except when discussed by secondary sources. If you're intending to use the primary sources as supplementary documents, than you need to include the secondary sources that discuss them. Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ravensfire I have confirmed the birth name and dates via a different secondary source like books, publications etc. Hence I'm 100% sure that they both it belongs to the same person. Also added to this the source isn't that easy to access since it requires all the personal details of the person first, not to forget you need registration to access this site. The problem here is also not the birth dates or birth place which have been confirmed via a secondary source. It is more of use of such these source for BLPs Rejoy2003(talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm going to WP:AGF here, because I don't think you realise you have been talking at cross-purposes with other editors in the discussion so far. I can understand how this can happen - the brain sees what it expects to see when things are similar. In this case the policy they are asking you to look at is not the policy you are quoting back at them. Therefore I am taking the opportunity to invite you, clearly and unambiguously, to look at WP:BLPPRIMARY - note the extra three letters, BLP - and see how it applies to the edits you wish to make. I hope once you have looked at the right policy you will have a better understanding of what to do next. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- @JustAnotherCompanion Uh I think there might have been a confusion, but I can't use WP:Primary as you've said because of BLP reasons, I get that now. I was looking for a "loophole" or anything sort if any such primary sources can be included. As the policy says it's okay to use as a "supplement to the secondary source", otherwise than this I guess it's not really appreciated to use such sources. If I'm getting this right? Rejoy2003(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are no loopholes, I'm afraid. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear.
Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth
. Regarding using them as a supplement, I see this has already been explained by another editor earlier. - Consider this - how do you know that the birth certificate you have found is the right one for the right person? If it's because you have a secondary source stating this information, then just use the secondary source. If it's because you have done your own research, then you cannot use it as a source because that is a WP:NOR breach. (And if you take a little from column A and a little from column B by saying "I have found a source that provides [information] about the person, and I have looked at the public records and [information] matches, so I now have their DOB and can use it in an article-" you can't, because this would be WP:SYNTH.
- The long and short of it is that a high bar is set for BLP articles, and if you can't clear that bar, that's it. The editor who merely flagged your reference was actually being kind; other editors would remove the suspect source (citing BLPPRIMARY) and unless there are other sources, they would also remove the birthday (citing WP:DOB). JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. We should really never be using birth certificates unless they have been widely discussed in secondary sources, particularly for high-profile public figures such as the Obama example given above. In addition to BLPPRIMARY, there are other concerns such as WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NPOV to think of. Many people consider their date of birth to be private info, and we should respect that, always erring on the side of caution. Details such as the street they were born on also seems to cross the line into privacy concerns. Likewise, many private individuals don't want their name published on Wikipedia, so we need to respect that as well. This includes parents, siblings, friends and other relatives. Unless these people are notable enough to have their own article we really need to avoid naming them in the subject's, even if those names are found in secondary sources but especially if they come from primary sources only. (See: WP:BLPNAME.) Primary sources like birth records are what secondary sources use, and for the most part when we use them we're no longer doing the work of an encyclopedic researcher but that of a newspaper reporter, which is crossing the line into original research. It's the same reason we don't use tax records or phone books. We should really avoid using those kinds of sources unless there is a real overriding need. In most cases if secondary sources don't report the info then neither should we, and if they do then we don't need the primary sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- What about the use of Facebook sources? The article now uses her own Facebook post as a citation to the date of her wedding anniversary. Do WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSPFB apply here, too? SerChevalerie (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can use the subject's own social media to support some content—but never when it involves third parties, which this does. I've removed that content, along with some other poorly-sourced claims. Woodroar (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- What about the use of Facebook sources? The article now uses her own Facebook post as a citation to the date of her wedding anniversary. Do WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSPFB apply here, too? SerChevalerie (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. We should really never be using birth certificates unless they have been widely discussed in secondary sources, particularly for high-profile public figures such as the Obama example given above. In addition to BLPPRIMARY, there are other concerns such as WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NPOV to think of. Many people consider their date of birth to be private info, and we should respect that, always erring on the side of caution. Details such as the street they were born on also seems to cross the line into privacy concerns. Likewise, many private individuals don't want their name published on Wikipedia, so we need to respect that as well. This includes parents, siblings, friends and other relatives. Unless these people are notable enough to have their own article we really need to avoid naming them in the subject's, even if those names are found in secondary sources but especially if they come from primary sources only. (See: WP:BLPNAME.) Primary sources like birth records are what secondary sources use, and for the most part when we use them we're no longer doing the work of an encyclopedic researcher but that of a newspaper reporter, which is crossing the line into original research. It's the same reason we don't use tax records or phone books. We should really avoid using those kinds of sources unless there is a real overriding need. In most cases if secondary sources don't report the info then neither should we, and if they do then we don't need the primary sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are no loopholes, I'm afraid. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear.
- @JustAnotherCompanion Uh I think there might have been a confusion, but I can't use WP:Primary as you've said because of BLP reasons, I get that now. I was looking for a "loophole" or anything sort if any such primary sources can be included. As the policy says it's okay to use as a "supplement to the secondary source", otherwise than this I guess it's not really appreciated to use such sources. If I'm getting this right? Rejoy2003(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes! Magazine
editA source was added to Screams Without Words with insinuations that several witnesses provided false testimony. The source, Yes! (U.S. magazine), hasn't been discussed on RSN yet AFAIK. There are no red flags in terms of reliability, though there is a transparent agenda, in the magazine and especially the (freelance) author of the particular piece. Could an uninvolved editor weigh in on discussion of whether this is okay for BLP? — xDanielx T/C\R 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Flagging this again before auto-archived. There is no consensus at RSN or the article talk page as to reliability of this source, used a couple of times in relation to truthfulness of witnesses to alleged sexual crimes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Dispute on characterisation of BLP subject's wife's actions following convictions
editI could do with a more experienced and diplomatic pair of eyes on Talk:Adam Britton. I feel like I'm not communicating well. The dispute revolves around how much detail to include on his wife's actions following his high-profile convictions, and how to frame that detail if indeed it is to be included. Thanks. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The wording was sensational, which isn't terribly surprising when you check the supporting source and see that all its substantive content was attributed to the Daily Mail. I've removed it again. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- I feel silly having not noticed that, somehow. Thanks for removing it, we shouldn't (obviously) be sourcing BLP stuff to that. Or anything else. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Had another editor try to add it today (in good faith, might I add). I undid that, pointed them to talk, and removed the wife's name entirely per WP:BLPNAME. Still a little concerned about the attention this aspect is getting, but I may be grumbling into the void here: Not sure there's much further to be done. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Luis Elizondo labeled a "conspiracy theorist" repeatedly without citation, page locked
editLuis Elizondo is currently in the news as a former Pentagon director who wrote a book about UFOs. Apparently several users have added uncited negative material calling the individual a conspiracy theorist with no mainstream or apparently any sourcing actually calling them a "conspiracy theorist", leading to editing fights and the page being protected:
- User:MrOllie here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242115774
- User:Sgerbic here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=next&oldid=1242107345
- User:Sgerbic here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242101175
- User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242094480
- User:Ixocactus here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242046430
- User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242007549
- User:MrOllie here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242005341
- User:2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900 here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241987543
- User:2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900 here (again): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241976670
There may be more but I stopped looking there. On the article talk page, User:Einheit947 posted about that "conspiracy theorist" removal here asking who removed that uncited material. I noticed it yesterday and flagged it as needing citation.
Additionally, User:Einheit947 noted that this apparent BLP violation was highlighted on a Reddit post that claims in their comments to have 100,000+ views already:
https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f1lxhq/when_you_google_lue_elizondo_the_first_thing_it
Just sharing here so you all can do whatever is necessary with the article under the BLP policy, and because the labeling of Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist" has apparently reached media levels of attention. I will assume I should leave a quick note to notify the listed people here on the various talk pages, so I will do that. Good luck with this mess. -- Very Polite Person (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reddit is not 'media levels of attention'. Re: 'conspiracy theorist', This is a person who is currently on a book tour, promoting a book in which he alleges that the US government is
in possession of advanced technology made off-world by non-human intelligence
and is covering it up. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- Still not appropriate at all to label the person as a conspiracy theorist without many reliable sources to back that claim up. We here may all agree that claim about UFO is bonkers, but it is our responsibility to avoid describing ppl in labels not used in RSes — Masem (t) 20:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- MrOllie, you've been editing Wikipedia for well over a decade. There is no excuse for you to not be familiar with WP:OR and WP:BLP. As far as I'm concerned, adding unsourced contentious labels to a BLP is worse than vandalism. Likewise to Sgerbic and Ixocactus. You'd be completely in the right here if you only held off long enough to find multiple high quality sources explicitly describing him as a conspiracy theorist in those words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page for the article in question has resolved this issue. Please see that discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The underlying behaviour is still problematic in regards to not understanding BLP and OR. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page for the article in question has resolved this issue. Please see that discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The edit warring to restore the label is troubling especially given one user has an Arbcom warning/sanction and the other thinks his own original research based on the subject's biography is appropriate for the label. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- I done only one revert because I trusted in MrOllie edits before me. My bad. This is a serious claim and I supposed it's on sources. But after revert I checked the last sources (NYTimes and NewsAu) and realize that conspiracy theory is not mentioned. Then I stoped. Now waiting for allien technology for a better world. Ixocactus (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- :The job description of U.S. intelligence officers is to spread conspiracy theories and misinformation. However, unless reliable sources routinely refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, then it violates BLP to call him one. Also, if any sources are found that refer to him as one, they should only be presented as the opinions of the people who made them, unless there is consensus in the sources he meets the description. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just wanted to briefly chime in and concur with TFD and what seems to be the developing consensus--while I personally have no qualms with the label, this doesn't seem to be a common descriptor in reliable sources, even those of a more skeptical bent. As ever, best to hew to the wording in the sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. Whilst it is fairly obvious that his book does espouse conspiracy theories - there are even more outlandish ones than the one mentioned, judging by the book's precis, we still cannot call him one in Wikivoice without those RS. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- As stewards of one of the world’s most influential information platforms, it is our shared duty to ensure that the content we provide is balanced, accurate, and upholds the highest standards of integrity. I need to draw attention to a troubling pattern of coordinated editing behavior that is undermining the quality and neutrality of a particular high-profile article and backup what I have seen by OP.
- A group of editors has been systematically inserting unsupported and potentially defamatory information while masking these changes as minor or grammatical edits. This tactic is a deliberate attempt to bypass scrutiny and violates our core policies on Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and Neutral Point of View (NPOV). The insidious nature of these edits, disguised as routine corrections, is eroding the credibility that our readers rightfully expect from us.
- Even more concerning is the targeted removal or weakening of well-sourced positive information from reputable publications like The New York Times. These edits do more than mislead; they distort the reader's perception and compromise the integrity of the article. The subtle manipulation of sentence structure and the strategic removal of key citations have turned this piece into a tool for misinformation rather than an accurate reflection of the subject.
- This matter demands immediate and thorough intervention and supervision. I strongly urge the community to review and, if necessary, completely overhaul of the article to restore its integrity. The stakes are significant—not just for this article, but for the trust that millions of readers place in Wikipedia as a reliable and neutral resource.
- Let’s act decisively to correct these issues and reaffirm our commitment to maintaining Wikipedia as a global standard for truth and accuracy. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- ... That's a fair bit of proselytizing there, but I don't see much specifics.
- Please use wikipedia policies and specific diffs of edits to point out issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242007549
- For example, if you look at the links the poster added above, you can clearly see it. The edit note is "grammar" change where he really added "conspiracy theorist" an unsupported claim, above of and beyond all the information detailed in various mainstream sources about his career. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a revert. I did not originally add the text in question. I was putting the article back to a previous state because someone (you) had turned a sentence into ungrammatical mush. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I attempted to address the issue by requesting the removal of the "conspiracy theorist" label, as it clearly violates both BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) and NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policies. This label is misleading, not supported by reliable sources, and gives undue weight to a contentious characterization. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, content about living persons must avoid defamatory language. Furthermore, prioritizing a disputed label over Luis Elizondo's verified career accomplishments is improper and goes against Wikipedia’s standards.
- I myself was fixing this revision of your own:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242094480 (edit summary: : rv unsourced claims, disputed claims, and a reinsertion of grammatical errors)
- But as you say you were not the original person who added this ? I'm not sure who did only that you "revised it"., But whatever the sequence of events ? I noticed the issue and took action because it was leading to widespread misinformation. As discussed on the talk page, this edit led to Google labeling Luis Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist," as his main job role, which then became trending on Reddit ("Google calls lue elizondo a conspiracy theroist") and now Wikipedia and Google both look bad. Unfortunately, whoever added the label achieved the disruption they intended. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a revert. I did not originally add the text in question. I was putting the article back to a previous state because someone (you) had turned a sentence into ungrammatical mush. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, agreed. Whilst it is fairly obvious that his book does espouse conspiracy theories - there are even more outlandish ones than the one mentioned, judging by the book's precis, we still cannot call him one in Wikivoice without those RS. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just wanted to briefly chime in and concur with TFD and what seems to be the developing consensus--while I personally have no qualms with the label, this doesn't seem to be a common descriptor in reliable sources, even those of a more skeptical bent. As ever, best to hew to the wording in the sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Shitposts in biographies
editA suggestion at Talk:Tim Walz#Inclusion of Horse S*men Controversy? says that Tim Walz should include a section balancing one at JD Vance#Public reactions. The Vance article promotes a shitpost against Vance saying he fucked a couch, while the Walz suggestion is that he had his stomach pumped after drinking horse semen. I would just delete the Vance nonsense and fully protect the article but there is a massive discussion at Talk:JD Vance#The couch thing. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The "couch thing" send to have gotten more notice than the equine emissions, but neither belong in the BLPs imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the whole point of BLP is to avoid this sort of rubbish from being included in BLPs based off of contemporary coverage designed to cash in with outrageous headlines. Secondary sources are what we should use to determine content and this kind of garbage isn't going to be included in a biography/memoir/retrospective. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources that currently back up that section (newspaper articles) are secondary sources. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Newspaper articles are not secondary sources typically and in this instance they are primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, a newspaper aricle about people’s responses to something is a secondary source; the tweets themselves that it discusses are primary. (It might be primary for small parts like quotes from individuals given directly to the reporter.) But this is just not the important question at all. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- A newspaper article providing a quote by a person made in response to something is still a primary source, it validates what that person said but makes no transformative claims around it. Masem (t) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, a newspaper aricle about people’s responses to something is a secondary source; the tweets themselves that it discusses are primary. (It might be primary for small parts like quotes from individuals given directly to the reporter.) But this is just not the important question at all. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Newspaper articles are not secondary sources typically and in this instance they are primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources that currently back up that section (newspaper articles) are secondary sources. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is over there. We don't edit articles out of a desire for subjective "parity", precisely because it introduces bias. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good, but what should happen at the Vance article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should stop WP:FORUMSHOPing the discussion and use the talk page which already has a lengthy discussion on this very topic? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The lengthy discussion which has been dragged out and deliberately stalled for two months now while the ridiculous nonsense remains on the page bringing disgrace to Wikipedia, you mean? 2601:600:817F:16F0:9DB3:A3E3:5972:3194 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think we should stop WP:FORUMSHOPing the discussion and use the talk page which already has a lengthy discussion on this very topic? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good, but what should happen at the Vance article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I would oppose mention per RECENT. I doubt it will endure a year after the election. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the whole Piggate story. A total fabrication that many chose to believe as true. Personally, I do think it should be removed from both because I think its a BLP concern and that its just being used for political gain in the election campaign. And I don't think we want Wikipedia to demean itself by posting every lowbrow political rumour or allegation that comes out, there's enough mudslinging around in my view. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- We don't remove or include content in articles based on whether or not someone politically benefits from it. We remove or include content based on its coverage in RS. Cortador (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If an incident is notable (per WP:N), there should be an article on it. If no article is justifiable, mentioning a shitpost is merely an ILIKEIT amplification of the original attack. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- We aren't talking about having a standalone article for the couch thing. We are talking about its inclusion in an already existing article. Cortador (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- True, but we also look at DUE. DN (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Which reliable sources do you think justify it's inclusion? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The ones in the article. Cortador (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those aren't applicable here, clearly. Did you read the discussion, because those have already been brought up over there. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Those are primary sources, bar two which are just trivial/primary mentions of the incident but give deep coverage of other events. WP:RSPRIMARY Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you again for confirming your misunderstanding of sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The ones in the article. Cortador (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If an incident is notable (per WP:N), there should be an article on it. If no article is justifiable, mentioning a shitpost is merely an ILIKEIT amplification of the original attack. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- We don't remove or include content in articles based on whether or not someone politically benefits from it. We remove or include content based on its coverage in RS. Cortador (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the whole Piggate story. A total fabrication that many chose to believe as true. Personally, I do think it should be removed from both because I think its a BLP concern and that its just being used for political gain in the election campaign. And I don't think we want Wikipedia to demean itself by posting every lowbrow political rumour or allegation that comes out, there's enough mudslinging around in my view. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Neither claim is WP:DUE and so both should be excluded. Simple as. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Both stories are fake news (Walz - Snopes Vance - Snopes, it's just that the Vance one took off a lot more, probably because of the since withdrawn AP story which was supposed to be a fact-check.... Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely undue in both articles and reflects poorly on the choices of editors who push to include either hoax. Yes, in a few cases false stories may be due but these are not those few cases. Are either of these stores substantive about the person? Would a summary of the person be lacking for missing these stores? Are we potentially perpetuating a harm be including them (note that do no harm is a critical BLP ARBCOM finding). Springee (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the prose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP among other things. I suggest editors open an RfC per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE since it's pretty clear this is a contentious topic and there is no clear consensus on inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems premature, there was longstanding consensus for inclusion on the talk page. Consensus can change, perhaps your should demonstrate that it has before removing something that has been supported this long? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the prose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP among other things. I suggest editors open an RfC per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE since it's pretty clear this is a contentious topic and there is no clear consensus on inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If the hoax is removed while clearly labeled as such, Vance's Stolen Valor accusations should likely be removed from Walz's page due to the serious nature of the (currently unfounded) allegations. According to Wikipedia’s BLP policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with respect for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not Wikipedia's role to sensationalize or to be the primary vehicle for spreading provocative claims about people's lives. The potential for harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Although sources have been added to the Stolen Valor (a crime punishable under federal law) comments, there is no consensus among newspapers on whether a crime was committed. Currently, the Stolen Valor claims are presented as fact without acknowledging they may be untrue. There is nothing that makes that comment more newsworthy than the dozen's of other statements he's made; nor have we ever covered the equivalent of attacks on political opponents within their BLP.
- Currently, the main differences between the two pages is in regards to one being labeled clearly that it's the media attention (not the hoax itself) in why the Hoax is being covered, where as the "Stolen Valor" comments are being left as if it's a matter of fact; when it hasn't. Per the Guardian, Walz does not meet the definition of Stolen Valor, as written about here and ABC has also reported there is no evidence of such as can be seen here. The Hoax currently has Wikipedia:Consensus while the other is unclear if it does; however both articles likely have to be examined to ensure that wikipedia remains true to its guidelines and presents information as accurately as possible. Wozal (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding,
The Hoax currently has Wikipedia:Consensus
, can you point to me where it has consensus? Because I can point to no less than ten editors opposing inclusion and multiple editors attempting to remove the content over the past 2 months. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- As I'm sure you've read then within the discussions and within Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus is gained through the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. It is not determined by Votes, A large portion of the conversations on why to exclude revolved around one user's confusion on what constitutes a secondary vs primary source, what a reliable source was, the misuse of Wikipedia:GOSSIP (this wasn't covered because of its face value; it was covered due to the wide coverage by the media and impacted discourse on his candidacy.)(This user does a better job at explaining it than I do) It would be a completely different story if it were written using a different lens.
- In the case of the hoax, the claims for it were never about the hoax itself, but rather the attention it received while being clearly labeled as such. In the case of stolen valor, those comments were presented as facts, when they shouldn't be based on reporting.
- While consensus (this flowchart shows a simplified version of consensus) can change for any article (we must remember to base it solely on policies and not just because x amount of people say x if it does not relate to policy), we must ensure we are covering things as accurately as we can portray them and ensure that anything that isn't true is either explained or noted as being untrue especially with material like the two here.
- In both cases, they contain contentious material which are sourced; how they're presented to the reader is what makes them differ them. One indicates clearly that it is a hoax; the other does so as if it's fact. Both are covered because of the attention they received; even though the latter does not indicate the comments hold no merit based on other sources. Wozal (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I concur. All this political mudslinging is just that, and should not be included as WP:UNDUE. Perhaps some of it (such as the "stolen valor" allegation, not the semen hoaxes) may be worth covering briefly at the campaign articles, but broadly I do not think any of these should be included in the subjects's main articles. Curbon7 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding,
Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?
editThe discussion is at WT:MEDRS here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Context: Gitz got blocked from Imane Khelif article for continued medical speculation. See User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and the reviewing admin suggested to open a thread at WT:MEDRS to clarify the policy issue, which I just did. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- context: they declined your appeal of your page block because your arguments did not convince them to unblock you. Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and the reviewing admin suggested to open a thread at WT:MEDRS to clarify the policy issue, which I just did. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The answer is going to be "it depends" but I would note that BLP is not an area to mess around in, when in doubt attribute or exclude. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Tsumyoki is the subject's professional name; his real name is Nathan Joseph Mendes. The article body refers to him as "Mendes" throughout. However, I notice that Lady Gaga refers to her as Gaga in most of the article (with the exception of Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta was born into...
). Which Wikipedia policy applies here? SerChevalerie (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- MOS:SURNAME would be the guide you're looking for here, I believe. For the record, I looked up a few other musicians and Lady Gaga appeared to be the exception, as the ones I looked up - Avicii for example - all used the real surname in prose throughout. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @JustAnotherCompanion, thanks. MOS:SURNAME says:
When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used.
They are citing the example of Sting, which applies the closest in this case. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @JustAnotherCompanion, thanks. MOS:SURNAME says:
JD Vance Couch Hoax reintroduced without consensus
editThere is a very long and drawn out contentious discussion on this matter, and has been a very slow moving edit war. In the meantime, until there is an RfC I don't see why such material should be restored per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. I'm pretty much willing to take this to WP:ANEW, but wanted to see if we can't get an admin to intervene in the meantime.
- Removal diff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242551121
- Restoration ignoring WP:ONUS -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242558302
I am unable to find any RfC on this matter where consensus was affirmed, and WP:BLPRESTORE is pretty clear on this matter, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM I find perennial news sources covering what amounts to WP:GOSSIP doesn't quite meet the "high-quality" bar required for BLPs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, its gossip that isn't particularly substantive and does not belong in an encyclopedic biography...
- the hoax may be worth its own wikipedia entry maybe, but might not be worth linking into a person's biography Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll go and make an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- BLPRESTORE also says
Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Having read the talk page discussion regarding this issue, I think the above applies. It would appear (please correct me if I'm wrong at any point) that the discussion started when the hoax was given its own section in the article. As the discussion went on, there appears there wa a loose consensus to keep the information, culminating in one editor removing the separate section and adding a version of the information to another section instead. A later editor moved this information to a different section, and there is possibly still some debate to be had about which is the right place for it. - If no attempt had been made to address concerns, you're absolutely right and BLPRESTORE would apply. But editors have worked hard to make sure that the material is added in a manner that is WP:DUE, and BLPRESTORE would appear to recognise that. If the material is simply deleted whatever happens, that doesn't give editors a fair crack at adding in in an appropriate manner. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- RFC I just started: Talk:JD_Vance#RFC:_Inclusion_of_couch_hoax Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not wish to be unkind, but the RFC appears to poorly formed. You have split it into survey and discussion sections, but you haven't given clear options for the survey, and your own survey vote is effectively a discussion comment. Discussion started here not even an 30 minutes prior to your creation on the RFC - almost nobody has had a chance to contribute. I wish you'd let it play out a little longer here first, then we might have been able to craft a more robust RFC proposal. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- ah... its my first one.
- Should I just delete it and let someone else do it? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- ah wait... others have started replying to it... well whoops, I dont think i'm allowed to redo or edit now, right? apologies. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have looked at WP:RFC, which says
The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the rfc tag.
[Note, bold RFC is because I Wikipedia thought I was trying to actually place the tag here and I didn't know how to escape it.] There is probably still an opportunity to do that, especially if you make an edit to the talk page or the edit summary to make clear that the action is being taken so a better structured RFC can replace it. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- OK, removed the tag, and striked out the text. I'll let someone else do it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not wish to be unkind, but the RFC appears to poorly formed. You have split it into survey and discussion sections, but you haven't given clear options for the survey, and your own survey vote is effectively a discussion comment. Discussion started here not even an 30 minutes prior to your creation on the RFC - almost nobody has had a chance to contribute. I wish you'd let it play out a little longer here first, then we might have been able to craft a more robust RFC proposal. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the content again. We err on the side of excluding contentious material, especially about a BLP, and especially if the material is shown to be a hoax. This isn't "JD Vance in popular culture" or somesuch, where there might be a good argument to include (there might even be justification for a stand-alone article at this point), but rather the main biographical article about the person, with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself.
Did you read the paragraph you removed? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)- Yes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then you know your statement I quoted is false, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're getting at, but anyone interested can just take a look at the version before I reverted and confirm that it was under a "public reactions" section, a subsection of the VP campaign. It isn't part of "in popular culture" or the like but part of the main biography as though the hoax has anything to do with a public reaction to Vance-as-VP-candidate. It's either a hoax or a reaction to a hoax, not to Vance. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- The sources do seem to present it as largely a reaction to Vance's image (sexually repressed, weird, oversharer), they seem to suggest that the reason it went so viral is that it was really believable even if unveracious... That is it seemed like it could be true, even though its not. The longer I see this go on the more I think that perhaps it really is best handled on a stand-alone page with only a short blurb+link here about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- If it's false, why include it? Springee (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- What would be the basis for exluding hoaxes? Notability is entirely independent of the truth, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories gets coverage at John F. Kennedy whether there is any underlying truth to the theories or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because unlike the weird couch thing people are still talking about assassination conspiracy theories 50 years later. If people are still talking about Vance humping a couch in 50 years then I guess we'll have an article about it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- We have more than enough coverage, you can't make a competent good faith argument to exclude based on a lack of coverage... Which is why an argument is being made to exclude it on the grounds that it is false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The threshold for inclusion of facts/information is not "notability" but WP:DUE which is a lower bar indeed. "Notability" is a concept which applies to inclusion of an entire article or topic, and answers the question of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion here. DUE governs the stuff y'all include in articles; if a hoax (or any other fact) isn't adequately documented/covered by RS then it's excluded, but that's distinct from the notability of a subject. Any facts are eligible for inclusion, even if they fail to meet a "notability" bar, as long as they don't exceed WP:UNDUE. Got it, Horsey?
- With all that being said, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT apply here, and it's a freakin' tempest in a teapot, so pls delete. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:A630:BA40:F8C:EF24 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notability in the colloquial sense... Which is DUEWEIGHT (and note that on an academic level notability the term of art is just the application of due weight to the topics themselves). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt I fail to see your point though, DUEWEIGHT is no more dependent on the underlying veracity of the topic than N is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Because unlike the weird couch thing people are still talking about assassination conspiracy theories 50 years later. If people are still talking about Vance humping a couch in 50 years then I guess we'll have an article about it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it is true that LL Cool J has made love with a sofa, so there's truth; merely misattributed I suppose. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:7135:9DE6:EA27:BF8D (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- What would be the basis for exluding hoaxes? Notability is entirely independent of the truth, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories gets coverage at John F. Kennedy whether there is any underlying truth to the theories or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're getting at, but anyone interested can just take a look at the version before I reverted and confirm that it was under a "public reactions" section, a subsection of the VP campaign. It isn't part of "in popular culture" or the like but part of the main biography as though the hoax has anything to do with a public reaction to Vance-as-VP-candidate. It's either a hoax or a reaction to a hoax, not to Vance. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Then you know your statement I quoted is false, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- We don't seem to have a Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. Perhaps instead of fighting over whether this information belongs in a BLP, someone should create that and include it there? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is actually not a bad idea, 2024 United States presidential election could just have it's own "Misinformation" section for now and if needed, split off from there. I'm still opposed to having the hoax linked to Vance's BLP, similarly to the horse semen hoax for Walz, or whatever weird stuff comes up in this election season. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is that similar? They appear to have gotten vastly different levels of coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Does Wikipedia have enough disk space for all the misinfo? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is actually not a bad idea, 2024 United States presidential election could just have it's own "Misinformation" section for now and if needed, split off from there. I'm still opposed to having the hoax linked to Vance's BLP, similarly to the horse semen hoax for Walz, or whatever weird stuff comes up in this election season. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
The couch hoax is already covered in Hillbilly Elegy, and WP:Summary Style says only the “most important” parts of Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in the main Vance BLP, so it seems pretty clear that this contentious hoax should not be in the main Vance BLP. (This rumor about Vance is similar to the lurid rumor about Trump and prostitutes in Moscow). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can you explain what is contentious about the hoax? Everyone seems to agree that this is a hoax/joke, there is no contention otherwise unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- When there are jokes at someone’s expense, it undermines them, and causes arguments about whether it’s an appropriate way to conduct a presidential election. We’re having an argument about that right now, for example. VP Harris tweeted, “JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women”, to keep this disgusting lie front and center, and to diminish his stature. If Vance starts telling jokes about Harris having sex with inanimate objects, I likewise would oppose inclusion in her BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you think we should exclude the whole thing is because you personally think it is "disgusting", you are doing original research. Cortador (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t suggest to put the word “disgusting” into any Wikipedia article. Anyway, Jake Tapper of CNN says the hoax/lie was “gross” which is synonymous with disgusting.[5] I support continued inclusion of this gross smear in Hillbilly Elegy. But not in the main Vance BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Its going to be covered by BLP in both places. Do you think you can tone down the rhetoric a bit? The level of anger you're bringing to this discussion is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not angry at you. Are you angry at me for being angry at you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- You appear angry at the hoax, the hyperbole with which you are speaking doesn't make sense otherwise. Calling it a "disgusting lie" "gross smear" is uncivil, hoax is already strong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that Jake Tapper was being uncivil, and I also don’t agree that he was angry. He was just stating facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jake Tapper is not a wikipedia editor to the best of my knowledge... If he was and he said the same sort of stuff he says on TV he would most certainly cross the civility line repeatly in only an hour. Just call it a hoax, no need to go the extra mile into obvious non-objectivity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t agree that Jake Tapper was being uncivil, and I also don’t agree that he was angry. He was just stating facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- You appear angry at the hoax, the hyperbole with which you are speaking doesn't make sense otherwise. Calling it a "disgusting lie" "gross smear" is uncivil, hoax is already strong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’m not angry at you. Are you angry at me for being angry at you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Its going to be covered by BLP in both places. Do you think you can tone down the rhetoric a bit? The level of anger you're bringing to this discussion is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I didn’t suggest to put the word “disgusting” into any Wikipedia article. Anyway, Jake Tapper of CNN says the hoax/lie was “gross” which is synonymous with disgusting.[5] I support continued inclusion of this gross smear in Hillbilly Elegy. But not in the main Vance BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question, what is contentious about the hoax? Being at someones expense doesn't make it contentious, being used to diminish someone's stature doesn't make it contentious... Only there being an actual contention does that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve answered as best I could. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your answer appears to be that it isn't contentious as wikipedia means the term (multiple sides to the issue). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I never suggested it’s not contentious. I explained the exact opposite above. Some people think it was a gross smear, others think it was interesting and humorous. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, just leave it be--no further responses to this needling are necessary. User:Rhododendrites, thank you for the cleanup. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Gladly. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Anythingyouwant, just leave it be--no further responses to this needling are necessary. User:Rhododendrites, thank you for the cleanup. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I never suggested it’s not contentious. I explained the exact opposite above. Some people think it was a gross smear, others think it was interesting and humorous. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Anythingyouwant You haven't answered this at all. You appear to find the hoax offensive on some level, which doesn't make it contentious. It would be contentious if RS reported on this in a detrimental way, which isn't the case. There's virtually no disagreement among RS that someone created the hoax, it was debunked, and there was fallout for Vance (mainly in the form of public mockery). Cortador (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your answer appears to be that it isn't contentious as wikipedia means the term (multiple sides to the issue). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I’ve answered as best I could. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you think we should exclude the whole thing is because you personally think it is "disgusting", you are doing original research. Cortador (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- When there are jokes at someone’s expense, it undermines them, and causes arguments about whether it’s an appropriate way to conduct a presidential election. We’re having an argument about that right now, for example. VP Harris tweeted, “JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women”, to keep this disgusting lie front and center, and to diminish his stature. If Vance starts telling jokes about Harris having sex with inanimate objects, I likewise would oppose inclusion in her BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Janek Rubeš
editUser:GamerPooper is adding the claim that Janek Rubeš is married to his colleague and friend Honza Mikulka (diff). There is no source for the claim.
Part of the edits is an image that could look like their marriage, but in the YouTube video where it is from, it is described as "Honza had his wedding", not as "our wedding". I also requested the deletion of the image on copyright grounds but I believe that is a separate issue. If the clip was determined to be a valuable source, it can be properly linked.
I tried discussing this on the article talk page but so far I don't believe this has been successful in resolving the issue, even though the article is currently in its original state. — Marvin talk 17:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Barbara O'Neill Page full of slander
editIt is impossible to add information to the page as it has been locked, and what is there is full of false information and slander. One such claim is that every single scientist disagrees with her. Another false claim is that she "failed" nursing school. It also tries to paint her as a religious nutjob by immediately mentioning that she teaches at a seven-day Adventist church. She has taught at one in the past and has discussions with other members of the church as she does attend it. She is not a function of the church. Barbara O'Neill was a practitioner in childhood medicine in Australia, but also, over 22,000 of her patients have signed a petition to repeal the Wales decision on her not being allowed to practice medicine. This is significant, but not mentioned once on Wikipedia as the information on her was written with prejudice and bias. 2600:1700:3AE7:5000:79E3:1FC0:F2D9:3DAA (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- The article's talk page is not locked. You can post evidence-based suggestions for edits there. Before you do so, it is best to do some due diligence by checking what the article's cited sources say. If they are incorrect or have been misrepresented in some way, you will need to provide evidence to that effect, by supplying reliable sources that support your points for example. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Noting that it has been locked in the past:[6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- I did change the one bit about "failing" nursing training, which was not quite supported by the source. Otherwise, I second Sean.hoyland's advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just a note that petitions are generally a dime a dozen. Internet petitions even more so. They are almost never worth of mentioning even if there is limited reliable secondary source coverage of them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Tim Peters
editThey seem to misinterpret the source, and add a lot of... opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EsotericImplications (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Paging @Algr:, who inserted the specific two alleged violations from a laundry list of them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- After reading the cited article and its supporting links, the SNL allegation or "cited objection" by the Python Steering Council seems to misrepresent his comments. I'm not sure if the suspension should even be mentioned in the article due to WP:NPF, and I don't see multiple RS reporting on the suspension. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Mukesh (actor)
editRecent poor quality edits to the controversies section about accusations - even before that the section was poorly done. I'm placing this here, despite having edited 2 years as IPs, due to inexperience with editing contentious materials that actually have sources for them. – 2804:F1...E1:EACF (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Pablo Marçal edit war
editUser:gregoriosev reverts anyone who removes his assertion without direct citations that Pablo Marcal, a candidate in the Mayoral Race in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It seems he is willing to engage in an edit war. I have not reverted his edit yet, as it could possibly implicate me for edit warring as well (despite exception #7 to the edit war rules). I will note that Marcal was convicted of a financial scam in 2010, as is also mentioned in the article, however his sentence was annulled. Therefore, it can be considered libelous to call him a scammer in the title sentence of the article. The Portuguese wikipedia version of the article does not list him as a scammer. I also request that this page be protected from users with less than 500 edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamjamguy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I removed the contentious label from the lead sentence per BLP. As for the rest of the article, it looks like editors are copying over the "bad stuff" about Marcal from the Portuguese article, which there is quite a bit of, while leaving out the rest. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Garry Nolan -- similar to Luis Elizondo issues other day. Anonymous users are adding without sourcing conspiracy theorist.
editHello,
Similar to this the other day: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_labeled_a_"conspiracy_theorist"_repeatedly_without_citation,_page_locked, a user on Garry Nolan is now doing the same thing, repeatedly assigning the text "conspiracy theorist" to the article of this doctor. This has now spread to Google search results for this living person.
Edit 1:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.35.181
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Nolan&diff=1242359083&oldid=1241922071
Edit 2:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:245:8201:9100:ECBC:D50B:767B:E791
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Nolan&diff=next&oldid=1242905728
Similar behavior from anonymous on Luis Elizondo:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241987543
Can we please get Garry Nolan protected? Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's been temporarily protected, and a discussion has been opened on the talk page about it. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Sean Ludwick
editFollowing several attempts by 69.123.211.73 to remove substantial portions of the article, a new account, PamelaHarrLud, appeared at the help desk claiming to be Pamela Harrison Ludwick. PamelaHarrLud says that she is no longer married to Sean Ludwick. According to the sources used in the article, Sean Ludwick is married to Pamela Harrison Ludwick.
I reverted an edit by zzuuzz removing Pamela Harrison Ludwick from the infobox and changing "Ludwick is married to" to "Ludwick married" not because I am unsympathetic to PamelaHarrLud's claim, but because we haven't yet established if PamelaHarrLud really is Pamela Harrison Ludwick or if the couple is divorced. I asked Zzuzz to start a discussion on the talk page but instead they reverted me with an edit summary of "no, BLP is policy; get it right and relevant, or choose not to"
.
Is this a BLP issue? I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, how is it usually dealt with? Is it customary to remove spouses from the infobox in the event of a divorce? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:BLPNAME. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through matrimony. Private individuals have a right to retain their privacy. The general practice is to not name spouses, children, family or friends unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own articles. To the average reader, the name means nothing unless there is an article we can link to; it's just a name without a face, so removing it or replacing with a generic descriptor does not alter the reader's understanding of the subject. But to the private individual it is often a very big deal and we usually respect their right to remain private. In this case, she never should have been named at all, so removing it was the right thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank YOU ! PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also from this 2015 source[7] that was in the article, "A number of Hansen’s relatives and friends attended the hearing. So did Ludwick’s wife, Pamela Ludwick. The two are apparently still together even though she initiated divorce proceedings last year." The source also discusses the subject beating his girlfriend (another woman). I wonder why the wife doesn't want to be associated with him anymore. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- This article you reference is from 2015 and I became officially divorced in 2022. Check court records please. I am remarried and could not get remarried without getting divorced.
- Thank you. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, but per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not use court records. In this case there is no need to anyhow. Your name should have never been in the article in the first place, so hopefully simply removing it should resolve any issue you have. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand you challenging the removal Counterfeit Purses, I think though that in this case the wife's name and the children's details don't add anything to the article. Removing them isn't going to make any difference to the article. Knitsey (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank You for your consideration and understanding,
- Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I can understand you challenging the removal Counterfeit Purses, I think though that in this case the wife's name and the children's details don't add anything to the article. Removing them isn't going to make any difference to the article. Knitsey (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, but per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not use court records. In this case there is no need to anyhow. Your name should have never been in the article in the first place, so hopefully simply removing it should resolve any issue you have. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- This does not require a complaint; we should generally be cautious particularly in associating an unnotable name of a living person with negative events, of which there are plenty in the article. The name of unnotable people does not add useful information. I have removed the name from the article body. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you so very much for your attention and understanding.
- Kindly,
- Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @NatGertler Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that Ludwick's wife's name necessarily needs to be included in the article, but I am not sure that she is not relevant to the overall case. One of the sources says
Records show that on September 9, 2015, just 10 days after the crash, his Brick Kiln Road property, as well as his townhouse on Sutton Place, were put into the names of limited liability corporations.
I assume this was intended to shield the properties from future lawsuits. The source continuesHis wife, Pamela Harrison Ludwick, sold the Sutton Place townhouse for $5.6 million in August 2021, records show.
- I will go along with whatever consensus forms here, but it seems like this decision has been made on "vibes" rather than following any kind of process. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Nothing seems to be based on "vibes". If the process is to "be cautious particularly in associating an unnamable name of a living person with negative events (of which there are plenty in the article). The name of unnotable people does not add useful information."
- Why is it relevant that the house was sold in August 2021, to his case ? His civil suit was settled many years before house was sold. None of the information is relevant and all it does is compromise the unnotable person, who is myself. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PamelaHarrLud My comment was not directed at you. We have no way of knowing if you are who you say you are or if what you are saying about a divorce is correct. It would be nice if these cases were dealt with consistently instead of an ad hoc fumbling. In this case, you will likely get what you want, but not because we followed any kind of process designed to help you (or to help us to help you). That was what I meant by "vibes".
- Can I ask why you were removing material about your ex-husband's crimes here, here, and here if it was just the name you wanted removed? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It does seem you have a consistent standard of practice - referred to under BLPNAME - and it seems as if it does indeed apply to my situation.
- Yes, I can explain . Firstly, I had no idea there was a wikipedia page for my ex husband. My first instinct was to protect my sons, upon seeing this page. I don't want their ages in the write up; but I was informed thereafter that the ages are for Paul Hansen's sons.
- The rest I attempted to remove was based on hearsay. None of what I attempted to edit was ever proven and as this is the father of my sons, who are online, I would prefer only facts be in an online encyclopedia for all to have access to, including my sons. There is much information that is misreported; based on sources that are salacious, such as Daily Mail and East Hampton Star. Not reliable news sources.
- I hope this helps explain. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It does, thank you. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- But what further information does the name give us that just saying "his wife" does not? It doesn't connect to anything beyond this article. If his wife was Queen Elizabeth, that would be a different matter. It's not just "vibes", it's very much in WP:BLPNAME territory. Things like "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." No one has made a claim of any way in which the individual's name signifies anything needed for compete understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes and to your point, Nat Gentler, his mistresses name at the time is not noted in any of the Wikipedia entry and she filed multiple suits against my ex husband. Yet, never once is her first or last name listed in Wikipedia and she is in all of the sources used to create Wikipedia entry.
- Thank you again for your time,
- Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Nat Gertler. Auto spell corrected. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am fine with just using the "Ludwick's wife" as the identifier. My point was that we might not want to trim too much to avoid mention of her at all. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's fine to use generic descriptors. "Wife". "Kids". "Coworkers". Etc. Whatever tells the story. In most cases the person's name isn't necessary for that. For example, in the case of things like rape we will often avoid naming the victim and simply use a generic descriptor, to avoid victimizing them even more. Often times spouses don't want to be named, and special care needs to be given to children who are not even old enough to give informed consent (even if their parents don't mind naming them, the child might grow up wishing they hadn't and we have no right to take that away from them). We have much higher standards than newspapers, where info changes daily. Encyclopedias tend to last a long time so we need to be more careful. The flip-side of this is when a subject is married to a notable spouse who does have their own article, because we're not facebook and don't keep up-to-date relationship statuses, and unless their divorce is publicized they may remain married on Wikipedia forever. Non-notable people don't have to worry about that. Zaereth (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was going to say the same thing as Nat. By removing the name and simply saying "his wife", the meaning of the sentence doesn't change at all. The name is just that, a name. Faceless. A shadow void of substance. This actually comes up here a lot, which is why we have BLPNAME. The whole point of BLP policy is to protect the rights of the people we write about. Much of it is about ethics. Unless there is some overriding need to know, for example if the story wouldn't make sense without the name, we should simply omit it. Zaereth (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I am happy to know of the BLPNAME policy in order to help to protect those that have been collateral damage in these situations, in any small way possible. As you say, it is an ethical decision but equally as important to your standards, does not change the context of the information by changing the name to a reference. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Rabi Lamichhane
editI'm not sure about the legal case information at Rabi Lamichhane#Legal issues#Financial Disputes and Allegations. My guess is that the statement in the article, Notably, some of these cases remain open, drawing significant attention and criticism
, is not well-enough supported by the three references and the list of cases, but would like someone with a better understanding of US legal procedures to have a look. The references are a case listing on unicourt.com, a case search at Maryland Judiciary which tells me I have been blocked (?geoblocked), and a YouTube video - this one clearly not a reliable source. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and removed the section. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we are not allowed to use court documents to support any allegations against a living person. Youtube is also not considered a reliable source, and is also a primary source to boot. Information like this needs to come from reliable WP:Secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Zaereth. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Court docs, and any info supported by them, should be removed on sight without the need for discussion, so if you ever see them feel free to do so yourself. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, Zaereth. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Zaereth: Please be more cautious in providing advice to other editors. It's not true that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source, and is also a primary source." YouTube is just a video hosting site. There are many publishers and authors (creators, producers, etc.) who use YouTube to host videos that we consider to be reliable and there are many videos on YouTube that are secondary or even tertiary sources. And we do not have a blanket ban on the use of court documents. They are used infrequently and are almost always treated as primary sources but there are still situations in which it is appropriate to cite them in a Wikipedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- However, for court documents in BLPs, there are almost nearly no situations we allow for those, so Zaereth is absolutely correct. And YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable to avoid WP:BLPSPS issues with individual contributors making controversial claims towards a BLP. Masem (t) 14:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zaereth is not "absolutely correct" and your own statements align with my own. Your assertion that "there are almost nearly no situations we allow for [court documents in BLPs]" is obviously not the same as Zaereth's assertion that "we are not allowed to use court documents to support any allegations against a living person." And your assertion that "YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable" also directly refutes Zaereth's statement that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source." You and I are in agreement that Zaereth's statements were wrong so I'm not sure why you're saying that we're not in agreement. ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's far better to stick to the line that YouTube/court documents are never allowed on BLP as to say they may be allowed within certain exceptions, when explaining these policies to newer users. Certainly they can be used but they need utmost care and I would not be encouraging users to consider that there are possible uses, rather than there are reasonable exceptions that require careful consideration. So I fully agree with the side that Zaereth falls on here when we talk about BLP articles. Masem (t) 15:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's very disturbing that an administrator supports providing advice to editors that flatly contradicts policy and practice. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- No comment on the Youtube issue. But the court documents one is fine. I mean yes, it might sometimes be okay to use court documents for stuff about living persons provided that they only an additional source and all the claims we make are also present in a reliable secondary source; but ultimately since the court document can be removed without issue since it isn't the only source, it's not really supporting anything. In many ways it's more of a cross between an external link and source. Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let's put it a different way, is Zaereth's comment really that different from what BLPPRIMARY says "
Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.
"? I'd say not. Yes they didn't mention the additional "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
" part but they did link to BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)- Also a reminder that the most recent discussion over this was fairly recent Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents. At the time I was more successful at avoiding Wikipedia than I am now so didn't participate, however I'm please to see the results IMO are not that bad. While we didn't quite get a consensus to completely ban court documents, it seems clear even in the fairly simple case of reporting the end result, something not mentioned in reliable secondary sources, of a case we do mention from reliable secondary sources there was fairly strong opposition to doing so. (Personally that's the only case I've ever contemplated relaxing BLPPRIMARY and I do wonder if the examples given didn't help.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Let's put it a different way, is Zaereth's comment really that different from what BLPPRIMARY says "
- No comment on the Youtube issue. But the court documents one is fine. I mean yes, it might sometimes be okay to use court documents for stuff about living persons provided that they only an additional source and all the claims we make are also present in a reliable secondary source; but ultimately since the court document can be removed without issue since it isn't the only source, it's not really supporting anything. In many ways it's more of a cross between an external link and source. Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's very disturbing that an administrator supports providing advice to editors that flatly contradicts policy and practice. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's far better to stick to the line that YouTube/court documents are never allowed on BLP as to say they may be allowed within certain exceptions, when explaining these policies to newer users. Certainly they can be used but they need utmost care and I would not be encouraging users to consider that there are possible uses, rather than there are reasonable exceptions that require careful consideration. So I fully agree with the side that Zaereth falls on here when we talk about BLP articles. Masem (t) 15:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Zaereth is not "absolutely correct" and your own statements align with my own. Your assertion that "there are almost nearly no situations we allow for [court documents in BLPs]" is obviously not the same as Zaereth's assertion that "we are not allowed to use court documents to support any allegations against a living person." And your assertion that "YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable" also directly refutes Zaereth's statement that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source." You and I are in agreement that Zaereth's statements were wrong so I'm not sure why you're saying that we're not in agreement. ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- However, for court documents in BLPs, there are almost nearly no situations we allow for those, so Zaereth is absolutely correct. And YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable to avoid WP:BLPSPS issues with individual contributors making controversial claims towards a BLP. Masem (t) 14:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Zaereth: Please be more cautious in providing advice to other editors. It's not true that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source, and is also a primary source." YouTube is just a video hosting site. There are many publishers and authors (creators, producers, etc.) who use YouTube to host videos that we consider to be reliable and there are many videos on YouTube that are secondary or even tertiary sources. And we do not have a blanket ban on the use of court documents. They are used infrequently and are almost always treated as primary sources but there are still situations in which it is appropriate to cite them in a Wikipedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Robby Starbuck
editSimilar to Garry Nolan and Luis Elizondo, several dynamic ips and newer users have reinserted the contentious WP:LABEL of "conspiracy theorist" to the lead of Robby Starbuck. He has produced a documentary film that promotes conspiracy theories,[8] but Starbuck is not widely labeled as a CT by RSes. He is in the news recently for his anti-DEI activism against companies popular with conservative voters so his article has attracted drive-by edits. The article is semi-protected for 3 months, but more eyes on this would be appreciated. I also started a discussion on the talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- Using loaded language found in a small minority of partisan outlets violates WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:LABEL and probably several other PAGs. I also removed {{pseudoscience}} (which formerly, improperly, included Starbuck) per WP:BLPCAT. Using the loudest critics or most extreme opinions to describe, label, and categorize biographical subjects reeks of POV promotion, even if it's broadly considered a "good" POV by Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've added my own concerns on the talk page and have commented to others, I'm familiar with this individual and I can see how his recent activism would attract some editors who are keen on WP:POVPUSH (in either direction, just to be clear). Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
An edit war has arisen over User:Biohistorian15 attempting to transclude The War on Children onto the Starbuck article. I had raised WP:BLPBALANCE objections which was ignored.[9][10] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Your objection was not ignored, I directly answered it in my edit summary. If you have extremely specific ideas about what "balance" means in this context, please specify them. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Starbuck's notoriety is his social media campaigns that have made companies roll back on their DEI initiatives. Transcluding The War on Children onto his biography expands the article inappropriately giving more WP:WEIGHT to assertions sourced to WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS which AnimalParty first raised,[11] but also WP:DAILYDOT. The biography and movie pages are standalone pages for a reason. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Ok, I see. But then, there's multiple editors involved with this article and you would absolutely not have had to use three reverts within just a few hours; my edit was not vandalism. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Starbuck's notoriety is his social media campaigns that have made companies roll back on their DEI initiatives. Transcluding The War on Children onto his biography expands the article inappropriately giving more WP:WEIGHT to assertions sourced to WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS which AnimalParty first raised,[11] but also WP:DAILYDOT. The biography and movie pages are standalone pages for a reason. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Mister Organ
editMister Organ is a negative documentary about a private individual. Previously the article stated in wikivoice that Michael Organ had 'victims' (people who had their cars clamped for illegal parking on private property) and that he had engaged in psychological warfare. I removed that for obvious reasons but I still wonder about how an article about a documentary that is basically a hit piece on a private individual can exist and comply with BLP, would it be appropriate to redact the name? Should emphasis be put on the fact that everything in the article is just David Farrier's opinion/beliefs rather than factual information? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any comment about Organ himself should be from a high-quality source, as should any comment about Farrier.
- Describing the film as a "hit piece" without reliable sourcing also isn't acceptable.
- The film is sufficiently notable that AFD isn't an option so your best option is to summarise what reliable sources say about the film. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- The documentary is focused on Farrier's feud with an individual and portraying him in a negative light, I'm not sure how else you would describe that. You can't describe the film without describing Organ and the sources for the film are interviews or just repeating Farrier's statements. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you just don't know what a hit piece is? Because what you just described isn't a hit piece, its just a documentary which portrays its subject more or less accurately (Tiger King isn't a hit piece because it portrays its subjects in a negative light). A hit piece is when the main point of the thing is to destroy someone for reasons unconnected to the actual piece itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- I thought a hit piece was just something that is just negative on someone, wasn't aware of the connotations of falsehoods and lying. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Usually something called that has an ulterior motive, like animosity or greed or politics or anything really. Even if everything negative in it is true. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I guess it wasn't the correct choice of words. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- It's ok. Common mistake. Think of it like this: an article on Adolph Hitler is going to naturally be all negative, yet that in itself doesn't make it a hit piece. Likewise, an article on Mother Teresa is going to be nearly all positive and that doesn't make it a hagiography. If we strove for equal measures of positive or negative we would be creating a false balance. Balance actually means proportioning the +'s and -'s in the same measure as found in reliable sources.
- I guess it wasn't the correct choice of words. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Usually something called that has an ulterior motive, like animosity or greed or politics or anything really. Even if everything negative in it is true. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I thought a hit piece was just something that is just negative on someone, wasn't aware of the connotations of falsehoods and lying. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you just don't know what a hit piece is? Because what you just described isn't a hit piece, its just a documentary which portrays its subject more or less accurately (Tiger King isn't a hit piece because it portrays its subjects in a negative light). A hit piece is when the main point of the thing is to destroy someone for reasons unconnected to the actual piece itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
- The documentary is focused on Farrier's feud with an individual and portraying him in a negative light, I'm not sure how else you would describe that. You can't describe the film without describing Organ and the sources for the film are interviews or just repeating Farrier's statements. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- The other issue, which is what I think actually brought you here, is that the documentary is about a person who never sought fame or recognition and now they're thrust into the spotlight. Unfortunately, that can happen. Some people seek fame and others have it thrust upon them, and there's nothing we can do about that. For example, Mary Kay Letourneau never sought fame but became famous anyhow due to massive public interest in her case. This is something similar, although this Mr. Organ hasn't come close to reaching that level of infamy, the documentary is clearly notable enough to have an article on it, and as you said, we can't discuss the documentary without discussing this Mr. Organ. Even if it does cast him in a negative light.
- Of course, I don't know if it's actually necessary to use his full name in our article. We could simply stick to calling him Mr. Organ, or simply Organ after the first mention, as is common in most other articles. I don't know that using his full name provides any more of a benefit to the reader.
- Beyond that, I agree with 100... below that the legal dispute section is confusing at best. For example, why is it discussing lawsuits against people who weren't involved in the film? What's the connection? Also we could do a better job of explaining what "car clamping" is, for people like me who've never heard of it, since it's kind of essential to understanding the film. (They don't do that where I'm from. I thought it was talking about some kind of antique.) As written, the entire article is kinda hard to follow and creates more questions than it gives answers. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- The legal section is a hodge-podge of two issues. Someone issued a restraining order against David Farrier, presumably it was Mr Organ who issued it but this isn't confirmed and should not be included in article without any independent source on it. The restraining order was posted online and this led to a court case. The other issue is Farrier taking a sign from Bashford Antiques, he was unable to return it and was thus required to pay damages, although I'm not sure whether these should be included or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hodge podge is a good description. I don't know if any of that should be kept either. I can foresee arguments both for and against. which should be discussed on the talk page. So, without commenting on that, I will say the article is missing a lot of the information needed to make it coherent. A ten-word parenthetical could easily explain what car clamping is. Another sentence on why it's done and how exactly it was allegedly misused would help a ton. Many Wikipedia articles have this problem, though, none more-so than scientific and mathematics articles. They're written like a puzzle of connect the dots, leaving the reader to fill in all the blanks. Not done consciously, of course, but it's difficult and takes a great deal of metaperceptional skills to be able to put oneself in the reader's shoes. The legal section has the same problem. Too many dots are in need of connecting. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've redacted his name. One problem with sourcing is almost every source relating to this involves Farrier himself. The NZ journalism profession is quite small and it's hard to find actual sources that aren't simply reporting Farrier's description of events. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hodge podge is a good description. I don't know if any of that should be kept either. I can foresee arguments both for and against. which should be discussed on the talk page. So, without commenting on that, I will say the article is missing a lot of the information needed to make it coherent. A ten-word parenthetical could easily explain what car clamping is. Another sentence on why it's done and how exactly it was allegedly misused would help a ton. Many Wikipedia articles have this problem, though, none more-so than scientific and mathematics articles. They're written like a puzzle of connect the dots, leaving the reader to fill in all the blanks. Not done consciously, of course, but it's difficult and takes a great deal of metaperceptional skills to be able to put oneself in the reader's shoes. The legal section has the same problem. Too many dots are in need of connecting. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- The legal section is a hodge-podge of two issues. Someone issued a restraining order against David Farrier, presumably it was Mr Organ who issued it but this isn't confirmed and should not be included in article without any independent source on it. The restraining order was posted online and this led to a court case. The other issue is Farrier taking a sign from Bashford Antiques, he was unable to return it and was thus required to pay damages, although I'm not sure whether these should be included or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Beyond that, I agree with 100... below that the legal dispute section is confusing at best. For example, why is it discussing lawsuits against people who weren't involved in the film? What's the connection? Also we could do a better job of explaining what "car clamping" is, for people like me who've never heard of it, since it's kind of essential to understanding the film. (They don't do that where I'm from. I thought it was talking about some kind of antique.) As written, the entire article is kinda hard to follow and creates more questions than it gives answers. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I don’t see any obvious BLP problems with this version (following your removal). The Legal Disputes section is almost totally incomprehensible, though. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I would like to post the biography I wrote, I will leave the previous posting as well.
editJames A. Warren Jimmymac72 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Hey @Jimmymac72: It's not entirely clear to whom you are referring. There have been a lot of people by this or similar names. We also don't have duplicate articles on the same subject. If there is a preexisting article, you should improve the content there, rather than replacing or duplicating it. GMGtalk 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to add my biography to the page with my name. presently the only comment about me are submitted by others. As far as it goes, those comments are fine, however I want to submit comments that I approved. I would like to upload this complete biography. Thanks. Jimmymac72 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Could you please link to the article? I can't find an article for James A. Warren.
- In any event, it's not best practice for people to edit articles about themselves. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- There is also no Draft:James A. Warren and Special:Contribs/Jimmymac72 shows no edits except to this page. Judging by James Warren, Wikipedia has existing articles on five living James Warrens, of which perhaps James "Mac" Warren is most likely given Jimmymac72's user name.
- At any rate, Jimmymac72, it is not up to you to "approve" the content of your biography on Wikipedia, though you can suggest improvements either here if you make it clear to which article you are actually referring, or on the article talkpage. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jimmymac72, if you are the SWP presidential candidate in 1988 and 1992, then the proper place for you to propose improvements to the article about you is Talk:James Warren (presidential candidate).Make a formal edit request there, providing links to reliable published sources that verify the content that you want to add or change. Your personal recollections are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, unless published by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Jimmymac72, I recommend you read this essay An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Then really think deeply about this. Do you really want an article here? If you don't have a single skeleton in your closet or potential scandal that the existence of an article here might inspire someone to create against you (maybe you're the rare human being who never made a mistake, and doesn't have a single enemy or person who doesn't like you), then maybe you could have an article here, if there are enough reliable sources to pass the requirements at WP:GNG.
- It's your decision. If that biography article is not improved with enough sources to establish your GNG notability, it is not too late to get it deleted, but you have to act quickly, because someone may do that overnight. Once it has passed GNG, you cannot get it deleted. It will be beyond your control. So it's your choice. You could end up with a nice article, or an article that will act as a witness against you for all posterity. As a WP:Public figure, you have little protection against the inclusion of reliably-sourced negative content (even if it is totally scurrilous and false), unlike how we treat non-notable people, where we tend to leave out such things, even if true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- Valjean, the article in question has been here for 18 years. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- OMG! I misunderstood "I'm trying to add my biography to the page with my name." Since this was an apparently new comment, I assumed it was a new article. Anyway, the basic principles I refer to are still worth considering for anyone contemplating an article here. They should be cautious. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Valjean, the article in question has been here for 18 years. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm trying to add my biography to the page with my name. presently the only comment about me are submitted by others. As far as it goes, those comments are fine, however I want to submit comments that I approved. I would like to upload this complete biography. Thanks. Jimmymac72 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Joan Palmiter Bajorek
editHi All, Please guide me or provide me assistance with determining notability of this Tech Women's page: User:Techy.Sap/sandbox or Draft:Joan Palmiter Bajorek Techy.Sap (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Spamming an article with passing mentions and promotional content will achieve absolutely nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
WP:BLPNAME for wife of Prime Minister
editThe wife of Christopher Luxon has her name mentioned twice in the article. I removed her name as it adds nothing in the article per WP:BLPNAME but have been reverted twice. Even more worrying is the mention of her former name based on original research in the talk page, I think I should remove it but BLPNAME suggests it only applies to articles even if BLP is supposed to apply to all pages. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- While I'm generally supportive of removing the names of non-notable spouses, I think the wives of heads of state and government are an exception given that they tend to receive a fair amount of media attention. I mean they can sometimes even travel on official visits, and be involved in welcoming and hosting on official visits. And we even have an article Spouse of the prime minister of New Zealand. The OR thing is more concerning. The general discussion is fine IMO given that it helps explain why we don't list any names, but perhaps removing the names are best if the state of the sources is still correct. Also that means that the spouse article needs to be fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'll remove alleged maiden names due to OR. I don't believe her name contributes anything to the article as it is only mentioned twice and having a name adds nothing to the article, even if not BLP it is plainly trivial to include.
- The spouse article is quite problematic given the unsourced relationship claims and I am going to remove those. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- Oh the relationship split is sourced, to an article titled: 'Incoming prime minister Chris Hipkins wants to keep his family out of the spotlight and has asked for privacy for his children.', I feel this shouldn't be included and I don't think we should even have an article, there's hardly any notability for spouses of the PM. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
- As someone who is generally a supporter of BLPNAME, I can't get exited about it when it's the wife of a PM. Her name is certainly widely disseminated. It may not be equal or whatever, but there it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Tasha K article filled with claims presented as facts
editTasha K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This article, created by a sockpuppeteer, is riddled with unverified claims presented as facts, inappropriate language, and unnecessary fluff:
- 1. "
It was Tasha K's show that it was revealed that Will Smith have had gay sex with his fellow Bel-Air actor Duane Martin
" - 2. "
Tasha K also disclosed the three-year clandestine relationship between August Alsina and Jada Pinkett Smith
" - 3. It describes Dennis McKinley's alleged "
cocaine use and infidelity
" as "[t]hese vices of his
" - 4. "
It was Tasha K who unraveled that Wendy Williams' ex husband Kevin Hunter had a love child with Sharing Hudson
" - 5. "
Her take on Keke Palmer during the actress' separation from her former husband, Darius Jackson, implied that Palmer allowed the public to believe her ex husband was abusive because he no longer wanted to be with her.
" - 6. "
Tasha K gave a congratulatory message to Ice Cube and spouse about their long-lasting marriage and compared Ice Cube to Denzel Washington, another actor known for a long-lasting marriage.
" <-- absolutely unnecessary
I don't think I need to show more examples; the article's in a bad state and I unfortunately don't have the time to clean it up. I'd appreciate if someone removes at least the blatant BLP violations and fluff for now. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the whole of that section for the time being, we can't have "claims" and "alleged" issues in Wikivoice and the sources are universally terrible anyway. Black Kite (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'm also unconvinced that the image is the author own work (Tineye is not a lot of help though, as it's heavily cropped). Black Kite (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- A BLP article packed with so many sordid assertions should be checked out in depth by a neutral editor thoroughly familiar with reliable sources in the rap/hip hop topic area. I lack the expertise, the motivation and the stomach to do that work. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
- All this WP:BLPGOSSIP trash came in with the creator of this article. It should be wiped out and recreated at a later time with actual sourcing to RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Mana Tapu
editI need to sort my identity and wish wikipedia to help me with updating my biography.
Jorge Bo Smid 10.07.1981 Founder and Owner of Trademark ManaTapu and mastermind of the movement and artist development. https://www.manatapu.ie/ https://www.manatapu.com/category/announcement/ https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/ https://timesofmalta.com/article/earth-garden-social-media-goes-dark-malicious-copyright-claim.1093726
Until now these wrong entries have created a damage of over million of euro and needs to be solved and updated. Furthermore I am writing as Jorge Bo Smid and the Owner and Founder of the artist band. I wanna make clear I am the only band member and rightful copy and trademark rights holder in Europe.
Please be aware that my image and also trading and identity is infringed as much as my moral integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:8080:3900:6CB6:B61C:D3C3:341B (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- It is unclear what you are asking. You should begin by making a clearly worded, formal edit request at Talk:ManaTapu. Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be asking Wikipedia to take sides in a trademark dispute, according to this source: former member of the band Manatapu, who has an ongoing dispute with his former bandmates about some use of the band’s licensing. Like Cullen328 says above, we just summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Nazi apologists won't cease from vandalizing his article to remove reliable sources reporting the subject's far-right politics. I would like to request a reversion of their vandalism and editing lock as of my most recent revision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarstvovanie (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- You are both edit warring and need to stop. Your most recent revision violates WP:BLP; the source you're citing does not support calling Cooper a "Nazi apologist" in the first sentence. Please read WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Please also read WP:HEADLINES - headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source, and also WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources and MOS:LABEL - Value-laden labels – such as calling an individual a neo-Nazi – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution, and WP:ONUS - the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- This page was only created today. Is the subject even notable apart from the fact he said some fucking stupid things on Tucker Carlson's show yesterday? Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
- Judging by the sources, it doesn't appear that way. The only real secondary sources I saw wre related to the Carlson show, and those are iffy at best. I couldn't read the first one because I'm not giving them my email address, but it started off like a possible op/ed column, and the other one was more or less a bunch of quote from the show with no context, and not much else. If anything looks like a candidate for AFD, it's this one. Zaereth (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Why It Jason Emer Needs to Be Deleted?
1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page
2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject
3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)
4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject
All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. He may become noteworthy enough later down the line but for now, the subject does not need to have a page on Wikipeda. Anyone who can make me understand why it should be kept, please let me know. I am very curious and believe i spotted a promotional activity on this platform.
WikiProCreate (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have removed what I thought was problematic.[12] There may needs to be further review whether this person is notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Previous AfD, for reference. I haven't looked into whether this person is notable, but any forthcoming deletion nomination will need to address the claims that Emer meets both WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC made in there. (Also I note that the editor who has repeatedly removed content crititcal of Emer with misleading edit summaries is currently pblocked from the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
wolfgang hohlbein
editHi - This biography has not been updated to reflect the adaption of Wolfgang and Heike Hohlbein's book to create the 2023 television series "Der Greif". Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:20:8800:630A:0:0:0:B3A (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Wolfgang Hohlbein is not protected so you can edit it yourself. We also have Bibliography of Wolfgang Hohlbein. Have you checked there? Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The last paragraph of the career section of this article includes discussion of a controversy regarding the Athletic Director of the University of Iowa during Barbara Wilson's tenure as President of the University. This discussion within the article fail to meet the biographies of living persons policy regarding tone and balance. The paragraph describes a lawsuit settlement in non-neutral language. The tone and lack of further information from the cited sources attempts to imply that Barbara was negligent in her actions regarding the topic of the lawsuit. Having such an implication regarding a lawsuit in the biography of a living person is clearly in violation of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.85.9.21 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
- Removed, and thanks! In the future, if you're not prevented from doing so by page protection or some conflict of interest on your part, you should remove such content yourself. If you are so prevented, use the associated talk page to make the case for removal. This is a good place to come to if talk page discussion doesn't prove fruitful due to lack of response or failure to reach consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Deletion of revision
editCould someone please delrev revision 1232398614 from John Michael Montgomery? It contains polemic misinformation about the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Dustborn
editCould someone here please respond to this allegation and determine whether or not to include it?--Trade (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)