Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

not married to the 49th president of the United States. That is false.

sport-interfax.ru

Hi all, I just reverted a change to Imane Khelif at Special:Diff/1240638173 to remove a clarify tag which was edited into the article on the basis of a page at sport-interfax.ru. Is this an appropriate use of the source and is it reliable for usage in a BLP? TarnishedPath^talk 14:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Vegan416 to discussion too Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite revealing that you decided to remove the tag even before you checked if it is reliable source or not. Plus you falsely claimed in the edit note that it is not a secondary source whereas it clearly is. Vegan416 (talk) 14:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this particular editor is also extremely active on the Talk page (making roughly 10% of edits over the past 500) and page edit history (5% over the last 500). I'm not making accusations of WP:OWN, but I believe this editor should consider whether or not their activity could be construed as such. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any analysis. I see a mere conveying of stats. From the article (translated) "In the category up to 66 kg, Saadat Dalgatova (Moscow region) defeated Azalia Amineva (Republic of Bashkortostan), Galina Golovchenko (Moscow) defeated Elena Vystropova (Republic of Dagestan)" and no other commentary added. For its usage I consider this to be WP:PRIMARY. TarnishedPath^talk 14:24, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources take information from primary sources all the time, that's the point of secondary sources. Interfax also conveys information on how the matches were judged, In all cases, the winners were determined by unanimous decision of the judges. Best I can tell is that this source isn't considered unreliable, and per the limited discussion available it seems that it should be considered reliable for non-controversial topics. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information conveyed in that article is contradicted by a number of reliable sources. So I don't see how we can take it as an uncontroversial statement of facts. TarnishedPath^talk 02:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sport-interfax.ru is a Russian news agency dedicated to sport reporting. These are not the boxers themselves or the organizers of the tournament who published it. And we are talking here about a simple fact: one boxer defeated another. What kind of deeper analysis do you expect here to make it more reliable??? Also I should note that this article is archived in wayback-machine from August 2022, i.e. 6 months before she lost to Khelif. So any idea of a Russsian conspiracy that change this article retroactively is ruled out. Vegan416 (talk) 14:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think concentrating on the reliability of the source is maybe missing the mark. The source cannot be used by itself to say something about the undefeated record as that would be OR although that doesn't seem to be what was attempted. Are there no reliable secondary sources which further comment on the alleged undefeated record? That would be the ideal situation. If there are none potentially we could remove the claim entirely, but it really depends on the level of coverage. IMO it gets very tricky when a claim has widespread coverage but is possibly in error but no source has commented on this error. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, clarify tag may be useful, imo. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: absolutely useful, as well as necessary. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Idk necessary and IDK if we needed a full quote in the original edit, but we could put in ^{[clarification needed]} to ask exactly how long Amineva had been unbeaten? for the year? the championship? Are the sourcing claiming she is unbeaten for her entire career (which seems unlikely based on these other sources)?

Would be useful to identify and narrow down. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above sources only mention the Russian championship. They don't say anything about her loosing a fight in an international competition. M.Bitton (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tags are based on WP:OR, and therefore, inappropriate. Furthermore, the IBA itself describes Azalia Amineva as "undefeated":

(July 18th, 2024 / IBA Champions Night) Azalia Amineva of Russia will feature in the only women’s match on the card, with the undefeated amateur facing the undefeated professional Rehema Abdallah of Tanzania in the 66kg weight category.

M.Bitton (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is this OR??? Assuming interfax is a reliable source on internal Russian sports results (which nobody here presented any reason to doubt) then we have a reliable source that states she was defeated in 2022. That proves that the claim she was never defeated before 2023 is false or at least questionable. Therefore a clarification tag in very much in order. Vegan416 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegan416: +1, agree 100%. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the rest of my comment? M.Bitton (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. It is interesting to see that now you suddenly consider the IBA to be a reliable source after you had smeared it liberally in the other talk page :-) In any case even if we consider the IBA to be a reliable source then we have a situation of two reliable sources contradicting each other. This is precisely one of the situations for which the "clarification needed" tag is required. Vegan416 (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't, but the fact that you do is what's important here. No, we don't have "two sources", what we have is multiple RS making a statement and some trying to contradict it using WP:OR (based on a couple old articles). M.Bitton (talk) 15:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False claim. I never said that the IBA is a reliable source. And there is absolutely no OR here. The fact that these articles are 2 and 3 years old doesn't make them old, and doesn't make using them OR in any way. Vegan416 (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using them to draw a conclusion that isn't made in either of them is the definition of WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 17:40, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Noting that the statement "AA was defeated by another boxer is August 2022" contradicts the statement "AA was undefeated until March 2023" is the simplest logical observation. This is akin to observing that 2+2=4, and is definitely not OR. See WP:2+2=4. Therefore we have a contradiction between sources, and that requires a "clarification needed" tag. Vegan416 (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"X defeated Y" is a thing that can be true at one time and then later become untrue -- consider specifically the situation that Khelif defeated AA, and any sources that might have been written about that before Khelif's disqualification. If this is real then it will eventually be taken up by reliable sources explicitly, without requiring you to do original research (just as, for example, the dubious claim present in many early reports that Khelif withdrawing her protest made the disqualification "legally binding" has disappeared from later reliable sources, replaced with more accurate descriptions). There's nothing urgent about any of this; wait for good sources to come in instead of trying to do this kind of OR/SYNTH. --JBL (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OR here. I am not claiming that AA was defeated or undefeated until March 2023, I'm just pointing that there are apparently contradicting sources on this. And therefore we need to call for good sources to clarify this contradiction - which is precisely the job of a "clarification needed" note. Vegan416 (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is. For a start, "undefeated" is supported by multiple RS and the Russian-led IBA. Second, it's clear that it's referring to her bouts in international tournaments (as I mentioned previously, the two sources that you're basing your OR on are about the Russian championship). M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what the RS who speak of "undefeated" mean by that exactly. Maybe they mean international tournaments, maybe not. They do not say. Assuming that they mean only "international tournaments" without any evidence is the motherlode of OR. Whereas I didn't do any OR at all. Vegan416 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the IBA means by it? M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, and neither do you. That's why we need the "clarification needed" tag Vegan416 (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need any clarification because, given the statement, what matters is the fact that she is "undefeated" as far as the Russian-led IBA is concerned. M.Bitton (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any RS that supports your interpretation? Vegan416 (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interpreting anything. The sourced statement about her being undefeated is linked to the IBA and the IBA states that she's undefeated. M.Bitton (talk) 21:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the article doens't attribute the claim to the IBA. The article says that she was undefeated in WIKIVOICE. You cannot do that when there are contradicting sources. At the very least you should put clarification needed tag, or attribute the claim to the IBA. Vegan416 (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) The article says: "This disqualification [by the Russian-led IBA] happened three days after Khelif defeated Azalia Amineva, a previously unbeaten Russian prospect. The disqualification restored the Russian boxer's undefeated record". 2) The IBA is touting Amineva as undefeated (in 2024). M.Bitton (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You only proved what I said. The statement "Azalia Amineva, a previously unbeaten Russian prospect" is NOT attributed to the IBA but rather written in wikivoice. And this is unacceptable when we don't know if this statement is true, because there contradicting sources. At the very least you should put clarification needed tag, or attribute the claim to the IBA. Vegan416 (talk) 07:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Believe what you want. I'm done here (unless another editor wishes me to clarify further). M.Bitton (talk) 12:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristan Cunningham

Kristan Cunningham has been a completely unsourced BLP since 2008. I was unable to find anything of substance on her, just a couple clickbait/gossip articles, random quotes from Design on a Dime, or press release/hype pieces. I couldn't find anything of substance, nor any other notable works. Should she be AFD'd or redirected to Design on a Dime? Either way, it's clear she doesn't meet WP:GNG. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:57, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Tedder:, who has edited this article multiple times. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:21, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, 2010, I have zero memory. tedder (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tedder: Do you think a merge or AFD is warranted? I tagged it for merge, but there's hardly anything to merge. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: even just a redirect is probably fine. tedder (talk) 00:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Lorenz

I cleaned up the article, removing various parts of the article that discussed unsubstantiated rumors, used grammar to create a negative tone, remove unsourced assertions, and many other edits that were intended to ensure the article is a NPOV, is balanced (eg removed claims about her from an editorial on fox news that she rebutted) and generally cleaned up the article.

User Little Professor then reverted my edits, claiming that my edit contained "Mass introduction of unsourced material, insertion of POV" among other claims. My edits were specifically to improve tone, avoid libelous information, and were all responding directly to sources (or lack thereof).

The diff for Little Professor's edits is here.

I will grant Little Professor that I cannot decide on my own that fox news is unreliable, however that edit removed an allegation from a news organization that regularly attacks Lorenz.

Little Professor also accused me of misleading edit summaries without any evidence.

As Lorenz is a very polarizing figure, and is a well known target of online harassment and abuse, it is especially important that her article take a neutral tone and follow the rules for biographies of living persons. Little Professor's edit to remove my edits seems to be in bad faith.

The diffs for my edits are as follows:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240589386

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240589622

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240590519

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591071

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591321

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591714

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240593893

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240594080

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240594239 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirbagflow (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of you is responsible for the repeated use of the verb "reveal" (compare MOS:SAY)? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but I've just removed instances of the word 'reveal'. Leirbagflow (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over, but hard to really get a sense of exactly what the error or BLP violation is on either side? Both versions seem basically good enough? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article violated (and may still violate) NPOV WP:BLPBALANCE WP:AVOIDVICTIM and a number of other policies.

The original page (prior to my edits that little professor reverted) contained a ton of unbalanced information, was headed in the direction of WP:ATTACK and generally attempted to list all the dirt anyone could find on Lorenz. She has been the subject of a long, vile, coordinated harassment campaign that was spilling onto the article about her.

My edits were an attempt to begin cleaning up the article. Little Professor reverted my changes and accused me of multiple things with no evidence. I've asked Little Professor for that evidence and have gotten no response (see my talk page). Delectopierre (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer 'said' to 'revealed', generally speaking. It's more neutral; 'revealed' sounds like taking as granted that the statement is true, and also has connotations of admitting or accusing of wrongdoing.

As for edit #3, both youtubers continue to say that they weren't contacted prior to publication. See eg [1]. And considering the circumstances I don't think we can dismiss their claims. The former wording is better; if we quote the latest editor's note then for balance we should also cite Mazeika. Hi! (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe McLellan

User:Jaydoggmarco has decided to reinsert poorly sourced information we have previously agreed was inappropriate in the BLP of Zoe McLellan. The motivation behind the edit (to right a great wrong and impugn someone's reputation) is pretty clear from the edit summary: "This is an ongoing criminal case. It would be morally wrong to cover-up for her."[2] There was a discussion at this noticeboard about it late last year, where we agreed that this story, given the available sources, is not suitable for WP.[3] I'm not going to war over it, so I hope someone else will step in.--Thomas B (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just made this edit:[4]. Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive354#Zoe_McLellan and Talk:Zoe_McLellan/Archive_1#Is_ZM_a_fugitive?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your edit, removing the content. After reviewing the sources used, they are totally inadequate for allegations of this nature. We need high quality sources for a BLP. User:Jaydoggmarco, please don't edit war this content back into the article, and please read WP:ONUS - The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. It's clear you don't have consensus to re-add this content. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile their other recent edits include removing well sourced content. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[5] is a pretty remarkable edit summary for someone who was literally blocked for 2 weeks for exactly what they’re doing now. Perhaps @HJ Mitchell: would be interested in this development. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person who's been blocked several times. Let's not go there. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3A100.36.106.199 Jaydoggmarco (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who did what right or wrong in the past, you User:Jaydoggmarco need to stop violating BLP as you did at Zoe McLellan or you should expect a topic ban from all living persons at a minimum but possibly just an indefinite site block or ban. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I just read through a reddit-thread about this "case". Without solid sources, it's not something WP should touch with a barge-pole. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Campbell

I have previously removed the Personal life section in Campbell's article per MOS:GENDERID - which says - Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources. The source being used only says that Campbell won Best Non Binary Performer in a Play Award. The source does not say "Campbell identifies as non-binary". Would winning an award for best non binary performer satisfy self-identification per GENDERID? I don't believe it does, interested in other editor's opinions on this, as it has been added back into the article by an IP editor. I would also note that I have looked for high-quality sources for a definitive self-identification and can't find any. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A third-party source can definitely be used to say someone is trans or nonbinary, and indeed would usually be preferrable to a first-party source, provided that the source is reliable on the topic of LGBTQ identities. And reliable sources generally aren't in the practice of outing trans/NB people these days, so self-identification is usually implied. (Contrast the case of Bubba Copeland, who we refer to by the pronouns he took publicly, not those he was outed as sometimes using in his private life.) The question here, then, is one of source reliability. I would not consider an award's title a reliable source. It is effectively a self-published source (which can't be used for BLPs), and we don't know what exact definition of "nonbinary" this private organization uses. Maybe it's different from the standard one—wouldn't be the first time that happened with an award's scope. (The Martian is not a comedy or a musical, even if the Golden Globes think it is.)

I also can't find other sources, although I haven't looked very hard. I will say, I don't see any issue in saying Campbell won the award, since we're not making any statement about their identity, just stating an objective and encyclopedic fact about their career, and the win received RS coverage. That wouldn't belong in § Personal life, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:54, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaidnoway: Ah, here we go! Their profile with Spotlight says nonbinary. In the footer it says "The information in this profile has been provided by or on behalf of the member concerned." So unless there's any dispute of Spotlight's fidelity to the information people provide, that would seem adequate under WP:ABOUTSELF. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could be used to re-add. I deleted the entire Personal Life section, because the sources used did not match the claims. We still don't have a source for the claim of pronouns that they use; that was being sourced to an example of someone else using those pronouns for the subject, which may be sufficient for us to chose our pronouns, but not enough for us to say that the subject uses those pronouns. (That wordage always stumps me; people don't tend to speak of themselves in the third person, although Nat sometimes does.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More pedantic trans/NB people (like myself) tend to say "take" rather than "use". But yes, if you're saying that we should use they/them as an editorial decision, but not state in wikivoice that that's their preference, I agree with that. Lots of articles do that when pronoun preference is unclear. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 21:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This look good to y'all? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, source looks good, and also agree with the editorial decision on pronouns. And now we have a consensus that we can reference if need be for genderid and the usage of pronouns. I've had the article on my watchlist since I discovered a Twitter account was at one time the only source being used, and the pronouns were being changed. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works! -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Hill_(performer)

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.

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)

2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

There have been a few removals and reinstatements of the alleged perpetrator's name in the page's history ([6] [7]). This looks to me a failure to adhere to WP:BLPCRIME, but as the name has been published in seemingly reliable sources I'd like another reading before nuking the page history under WP:RD2. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 19:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the name again; I agree that it seems a straightforward case under WP:BLPCRIME to not include it, but have no knowledge of revdel policy to offer an opinion about nuking the page history. --JBL (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does BLP policy justify suppression of well-sourced undisputed fact just because people might draw unwarranted conclusions from it?

Questions regarding content concerning Imane Khelif should not be misrepresented as hypothetical questions on other topics. More so when the issue is already being discussed in another thread.

Suppose a public figure (such as a preeminent athlete) refuses to comment about unsubstantiated (but not refuted) public allegations made against them. Suppose that their refusal to comment is not disputed, e.g. it appears in a distinguished RS, together with a video of that refusal to comment. In such a case, does BLP policy requires us to not report about this refusal, just because some of the readers might deduce from this "no comment" response that the allegations might be true? I think this is an extreme and unreasonable interpretation of WP:BLP without any actual support in the wording of WP:BLP. WP:BLP only forbids writing unsupported claims and insinuating language, but it does not forbid publication of well established facts, no matter what some people might make of them. Also there are many examples in Wikipedia where facts like that were mentioned. Here are just a few examples:

The allegations of “improper relationship” against basketballer Josh Giddey were not substantiated, yet the fact that he declined to comment on them is mentioned in his article.
The Mitchel Report on doping in baseball had some allegations that were unsubstantiated (e.g. against Todd Williams, Kevin Young, Todd Pratt) and yet the fact that the involved athletes declined interview is noted in the wikipedia article about athletes mentioned in the report.
The sentence "She alleged that she was raped by U.S. President Bill Clinton on April 25, 1978, when he (aged 32) was the Attorney General of Arkansas. Clinton declined to comment on the issue." Appear in the lead of this article, despite the fact that these allegations were never substantiated.

Despite all of that it seems that some editors staunchly claim that in the case of Imane Khelif we shouldn’t mention the undisputed fact that she declined to comment on the lab tests she had or hadn’t done, because they claim some people might deduce from this that the (unsubstantiated, but not refuted) claims that she has DSD/elevated-testosterone might be true. BTW, Here are some highly reliable sources that speak about Khelif’s lack of response to the claims that she has DSD: · "Khelif has never disclosed her biological markers" (NBC); · "Khelif declined to answer when asked whether she had undergone tests other than doping tests, saying she didn’t want to talk about it" (Time); · "We do not know if Khelif and Lin are athletes with DSD because the full results of the tests are confidential, and the fighters are yet to declare them." (BBC)

Comments? Vegan416 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to start a third simultaneous thread about this article on this noticeboard alone? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see here any thread that deals with the question I raised. Vegan416 (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question that you've raised is framed in a bizarre and grossly offensive way; but fundamentally it comes down to the same question as above: "Why can't I write whatever I want in the biography of Khelif?" The answer is "because Wikipedia has strong policies preventing you from doing that". 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's bizarre or offensive in my question??? In any way you didn't explain why you seem to support different standards in similar cases??? Vegan416 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that the examples you've chosen are similar is bizarre and grossly offensive. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are similar in the sense that some unsubstantiated (but not refuted) claims were made against a public figure (in sports or politics) and the subject of this claims declines to comment or provide evidence against the claims. Vegan416 (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean you're literally involved in a discussion at ANI of this specific question, which led to an administrator telling you that you do not have a thorough enough understanding of sources w/regard to GENSEX/BLP/MEDRS to be working in that area. I strongly suggest you stop participating here in this discussion and at the Khelif article. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that's a good reason to post here in order to get an explanation why it is allowed according to BLP to mention "no comment" response in all of those examples I brought, and not ok to do the same in Imane Khelif's case? How would I learn about the intricacies of BLP if I don't ask questions? Vegan416 (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brides of the Islamic State

After it was mentioned at an offsite criticism forum, I have radically truncated Brides of the Islamic State as violating WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and in the table of nationalities, WP:OR. Reporting my actions here and noting that JustStepSideways had already made less sweeping changes out of BLP concerns. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support your edit. And thank you for doing it. JFHJr (㊟) 02:48, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Might much the same logic apply to List of Guantanamo Bay detainees? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. It's a far more developed article, the list has a higher chance of approaching completeness, and there aren't the same overall issues of doubtful responsibility. Many articles have been soft or hard deleted and redirected there, in some cases indirectly; for example I see that Mohammed Al Amin was undeleted in this state (one primary source) and currently redirects not to the main list, but to the subordinate List of Mauritanian detainees at Guantanamo Bay (AfD'd on 10 August). There's less sensational press coverage. But the summaries of cases in the tables might still be excessive under BLP, and I do think those who were exonerated and don't have articles should be footnotes in the text and not listed. I think I'll leave that article to others; but there are my thoughts FWIW. (By the way, my ping above and in an edit summary should have gone to Just Step Sideways.) Yngvadottir (talk) 08:20, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Maccione

Some anonymous user has repeatedly edited the page with unsourced and unfounded claims the living person is a French citizen. I reverted the changes with motivation each time, but this is getting tiring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.caminati (talk • contribs) 12:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Ritter

The first sentence of Ritter's bio was recently changed to read "William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is a convicted American child sex offender". It's a little strong given the other elements of his bio. There is a discussion of the sentence at Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence. Burrobert (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The description is apparently accurate although over-the-top considering what the sources say he did and what "child sex offender" might mean. However, the sentence is totally inappropriate given that if that was what Ritter was known for, the article would not exist. Johnuniq (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion brought to my attention that no one had ever closed Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive § RfC: "convicted felon" / "convicted sex offender" in the lead sentence despite there being, as Hatman31 states, a pretty clear consensus. I've taken a stab at implementing a close. If no one reverts me in the next day or two I'll create MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 05:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployed

“He spent most of us adult life unemployed”??? His first hit song - he was 19 almost 20”. Lame. 2600:1700:5FBF:8C10:B6:3466:A061:6956 (talk) 04:21, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence "He spent most of us [sic] adult life unemployed" does not appear in any Wikipedia article, nor if I change "us" to "his". Could you please clarify what article you're referring to? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 04:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's referring to Blueface ("he had spent most of his adult life unemployed") -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Grossman

The citation (note 1) for the assertion that Dr Grossman "has promoted conversion therapy for gay people" is a throwaway comment in an Australian newspaper - Dr Grossman is American - that she is "famous for her approval of conversion therapy". I've just spent 30 minutes raking through google responses for <"miriam grossman" "conversion therapy"> and also following links, and I've not been able to find anything except vague assertions that she was a member of NARTH (she's not mentioned on the Wikipedia article for NARTH) and that she supports gay conversion therapy. I realise that the current trans orthodoxy results in disparagement of anyone who doesn't subscribe to it but it does look a lot like people have been trying to denigrate Dr Grossman by associating her with conversion therapy in order to undermine her position on treatment of young persons with gender dysphoria. I think the comment should be deleted from the article and the reference taken out. If there is a better reference - one which actually does demonstrate that she supported gay conversion therapy, then that should be used instead of this worthless reference in a random Australian news article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.97.203 (talk) 12:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Trans orthodoxy"? Oh dear. Drmies (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She specifically refers to conversion therapy in the field of gender dysphoria. In fact, it's what she claims to do, as in this interview. Lard Almighty (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily A. Holmes

Resolved

– Article now ECP for six months, thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes and views would be useful at Emily A. Holmes. This is an article about an academic. There is a slow-moving content dispute about whether allegations that she has bullied postgraduate students should be included. This has been discussed on the article's Talk page, but not resolved. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least four editors involved who are SPAs, whose only edits have been to the article and/or the talk page, three want to add them, one wants to remove them. If the disruption continues, you could request page protection for ECP. Another alternative would be to have a RfC. Holmes doesn't appear to be a high profile individual, so multiple sources should be used, and another thing to consider is if these allegations had a significant impact on her academic career. For the time being, I would leave them out. It also looks like the source being used was censured for having been in violation of good journalistic practice in relation to the article they published about Holmes. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article it's based upon has an update at the end pointing to a ruling by the Swedish media ombudsman about the reporting[8]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both, that's helpful. I'd missed the link to the ombud ruling. Reference has been added again by one of the SPAs. I've removed it and requested ECP. Tacyarg (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even without that ruling, this person fell under WP:NPF. A more relaxed WP:PUBLICFIGURE standard requires multiple sources and that wasn't given in those edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Zegler again

Not because of the "Free Palestine" thing like above, but about the inclusion of whether her comments on Snow White being allegedly problematiced sparking an internet troll review bombing is bad.

Brewing edit war, would like to know if WP:PUBLICFIGURE would apply here or if it would be better on the Snow White film. (seems there were a few sources talking about it?)

Pinging @Lisha2037 and @Spanneraol Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war from my part as I haven’t undid any edits. Another user agreed with the content you and I added. @Spanneraol seems to think it’s internet trolls doing the backlash which completely isn’t true. Various sources in Wikipedia’s list of relatable sources reported on her comments and controversy. They were taken out of context. I didn’t add anything about her comments on Palestine or how she’s a Latina; I only added the comments and behaviours directly related to the story of Snow White. Im willing to bet the movie is going to bomb because of the bad publicity, heck Disney already moved the release date cause of it, and then everyone will be going to her Wikipedia page to find what happened. Lisha2037 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to add something, you were reverted, and you tried to add it again without discussing first.. which is the definition of edit warring. Spanneraol (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry did you check who reverted it? It wasn’t me. Please look at what you’re saying as you clearly are not. I think the general consensus is that it’s valid to add it so I’m going to add the content in again with even more sources. Unless you can find sources to back up your claim. I can also report you for edit warring as you reverting an edit made by two different accounts constituents edit warring? It applies to both sides. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that if you add something and are reverted you need to discuss your content on the talk page without re-adding it. And since there is an ongoing discussion you should NOT be unilaterally adding the disputed content. Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emhoff

[Douglas Emhoff] his biography states that he is married to Kamala Harris the 49th president of the United States.

An election that has not happened yet!!!!!!

Here's the link to his page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Emhoff#:~:text=Douglas%20Craig%20Emhoff%20(born%20October,president%20of%20the%20United%20States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B001:1B86:0:48:AB6C:C701 (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says "the 49th vice president of the United States". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imane Khelif

I removed a comment from the talk page of this article for violating WP:BLP per the header Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. I was reverted almost immediately with the edit summary citing WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Both of us posted on each other's talk pages at much the same time; I explained why I removed their comment, and I suggested they self-revert their adding it back. They declined to do so. Therefore, I'm coming here as the next step.

Reinsertion of removed comment

Given Khelif's public statements are that she is a woman, and especially given the fact that she is taking legal action through French courts, I feel the 'potentially libellous' reason for removing the comment applies. I would appreciate this being looked at by other editors now. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that she is a woman and there was nothing "potentially libellous" in the removed comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conditional statement "If P then Q" is not an assertion that P is true (neither that it is false). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's unnecessary to remove the comment. Whether or not DSD is mentioned, our article is likely to mention the claim she has XY chromosomes, and that some people have called her a man. Given the controversy there's no realistic way to exclude mention of those. Given that, I don't see see how the DSD stuff really introduces anything that would raise concerns. (I mean at the current time, there's even mention of DSD in a quote we give from one of the sources.) Note that this means I don't entirely agree with the comments above either. While I don't see see it raises BLP issues here given the situation, if this was just some random person without any similar content in the article, where it was perhaps only discussed in 4chan threads or something, I'd argue allowing such random unsourcable speculation is harmful. Likewise if the continued speculation goes past the point of it being a possibly productive attempt to improve the article, then it should be stopped although that's more of a behavioural issue than a must remove one. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been indefinitely blocked from Khelif article and talk page by Valereee. I'm having a hard time understanding why. Any comments from uninvolved editors? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking notice says it's for your speculation on an article subject's medical condition and links to that quote where it looks like that's what you were doing. So, I think that's your answer. You can always ask Valereee for more explanation, that's better than asking random editors for comments on an act they are uninvolved in. Go directly to the admin who imposed the block. You can disagree with it, and it seems that you do, but it seems self-explanatory to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Links to that quote” does it? Edit: oh I see not the talk-page post but the block-log entry. The relevant comment does not contain any speculation, it contains a conditional argument that illustrates the possible negative consequences of asserting in Wikivoice that someone *does not have* a medical condition, without appropriate sourcing. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re it looks like that's what you were doing. In what way would I be doing "speculation"? Speculation is the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain (Cambridge Dictionary) and is clearly different from a conditional statement that makes no claim about how things are. My comment does not make a medical claim - it does not state, suggest or imply that a living person has a medical condition - but is about the potential consequences of certain narratives that suggest that this person does not have a medical condition. It focuses on impact, not diagnosis, and contains the kind of considerations that WP editors should be free to make if we are to write verifiable and balanced BLPs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and you probably shouldn't continue to discuss Kheif here or anywhere else until that block is lifted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A block is not a topic ban. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne, I don't think we mention anywhere that tons of people have speculated that Donald Trump has a personality disorder, do we? I would assume that's because BLP+MEDRS. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not extrapolate the consensus of this RfC about Trump and make it a general BLP+MEDRS rule that is not written anywhere. How do you explain that Vladimir Putin says In April 2022, tabloid newspaper The Sun reported that based on video footage Putin may have Parkinson's disease? I'm sure we have other BLPs that provide information and/or hypotheses about medical conditions without citing biomedical literature. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a good argument. If other articles are making medical diagnosis or speculating about medical diagnosis without WP:MEDRS sourcing then that should be corrected. It doesn't mean you get to claim an exception. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not claiming an exception. I'm not sure that WP:MEDRS applies to medical information about individuals, such as diagnosis (some editors have ruled this out in recent discussions, see the Imane Khelif talk page here and the WP:MEDRS talk page here), but even if MEDRS does apply to individuals, it certainly doesn't preclude covering the existence of public debates about the health and medical conditions of public figures such as athletes. Since WP is supposed to cover these debates, editors should be allowed to address their topic in talk page discussions without waiting for MEDRS-compliant sources that will never arrive (a "review article" about Imane Khelif published in a "reputable medical journal"...?). Blocking an editor for merely mentioning (without advocating) a hypothesis that is stated and discussed by dozens of news organisations (e.g., Independent, NYT, DW, BBC), sport journalists (e.g., Barney Ronay, Alan Abrahamson, Martin Samuel), academics, experts and feminists (e.g., Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Colin Wright, Helen Lewis) is not OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666: Best thing to do, is walk away from the entire topic for six months. Then, request your page block be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Vaz

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" [9]. Another editor placed the non-primary source needed tags [10] [11]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It looks like you've used the goaonline Birth/Death certificate lookup in multiple articles - [12], 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)[reply]

If the person has died, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And nevertheless it is still better to use secondary sources in that case. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Andy Valmorbida

There has been recent and ongoing edit warring taking place at Andy Valmorbida. Please would an uninvolved editor familiar with BLP policies take a look? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Magazine

A 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)[reply]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

The page at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees appears to be a huge WP:BLPCRIME violation. It attempts to list by name all the people known to be detained at Guantanamo Bay, which the article describes (in footnote) as "suspected unlawful combatants". The strong majority of these people are not blue links, they're folks sourced to a similar Washington Post list, for whom we have no information but name and nation. Many of these people have not been charged with, much less convicted of, any such unlawful activity. (The list was created by a since-WP:CBANned editor who frequently sought to cover terror-related topics in inappropriate detail.) I attempted to raise the issue on the article's talk page several days ago to no response. Before I go to the effort of either trying to have it deleted or the sizable effort to alter it to a blue-links-only list of notable detainees, I thought I should check to see if others feel my BLP concerns may be inappropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking a view on this myself just yet, but putting my "What would I do if I was someone who wanted to defend this article" hat on; I see BLPCRIME says editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, I would say "The list does not violate that. It doesn't say these people are criminals or accuse them of having committed crimes. It just states the simple fact that they are (or have been held) at Guantanamo Bay, that's all."

The list headings are 'Name', 'Nationality', 'Captured' and 'Note'. None of the first three involve suggesting the person has committed a crime. A spot-check of the notes field shows it's mainly appears to be used to bald facts - age at capture, if they've been released/repatriated, etc. I don't see any notes stating what crime they've allegedly committed, and again, putting the above hat back on, if there was such a note on any entry "We will remove that note/entry, we don't need to delete the whole list."

I think for it to be a BLPCRIME violation, it would have to be demonstrated that "Detained at Guantanamo" means "Has been accused of committing a crime. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to waste any time debating against this strawman editor you're cosplaying as. Do we have any actual editors who feel that being placed on a list of people being held at a location for those suspected of being unlawful combatant is not a suggestion of them having violated combat laws, and that these names of database-sourced unnotable people serves some encyclopedic purpose that trumps privacy concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I was trying to be helpful and it wasn't my intention to create a strawman. If you'd like me to strike or remove my comment I will willingly do so. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that serves an encyclopedic purpose, yes. It's just as easy to read the list as "People the U.S. government has illegally detained" as "Terrorists", and advocacy on behalf of those detained has focused on getting their names out there and humanizing them, not on promoting their privacy. There's encyclopedic information about most/all of these detentions, and one role of an independent media (which I'd broadly categorize Wikipedia under, even if we're WP:NOTNEWS) is to publicize important information about the murkier affairs of state. So yes, we must "seriously consider", but here that serious consideration leads me to "leave it".

That said, I don't like all the stubs we have on the detainees; those are BLPvio magnets and generally unfair. They should either be expanded or redirected to the list (which has already been done with quite a few in the past). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the advocacy is presumably not driven by the subjects themselves. As for "There's encyclopedic information about most/all of these detentions", I'm certainly not seeing it on the list; for about half of them, the only other information beside their name is their nationality. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stand-alone list, so the list itself is notable because they have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and the criteria for inclusion on the list is "detainees that have spent time at Guantanamo Bay". If you think the list should be limited to those with WP articles or detainees who are otherwise independently notable, that is certainly within editorial discretion according to WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA. But I don't see this list as a huge WP:BLPCRIME violation. A problem I do see with the list is the lack of the article being updated to reflect what became of these detainees. My guess is the overwhelming majority of them had to have been released, because the current detainees list says as of December 2023, only 30 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on characterisation of BLP subject's wife's actions following convictions

I 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

RFC on Asmongold

There is an RFC you may be interested in on Talk:Asmongold as whether or not to include his surname within the article. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sackler

Is calling someone "evil" in the lead section really appropriate for a living person?

Regardless of how we feel about a person, is it really appropriate to say that the Sackler family is "most evil family in America" in the LEAD section of a biography? Is this the right tone for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.10.129 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as long as its wikivoice and its attributed to multiple sources (see wp:Attribution and wp:publicfigure ) then yeah

i mean maybe there is an argument for whethers its due in the lede… but he did start an opioid crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands of young and middle aged americans who had decades of life to live Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really accusing someone of being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths on the BLP/N noticeboard... Traumnovelle (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate and has been removed from the article and the Purdue Pharma article. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not appropriate, and the quote refers to the "family", so it is inappropriate to use that quote to disparage an individual. Furthermore, if you look at the sources being used for the quote, the first one is only a headline, which is not a reliable source, and the remaining three sources are clearly referring to remarks made by one individual, congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee. I agree with the removal from both articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Prince

Jonathan Prince is sourced only to a web forum and a wedding announcement. He hosted one short-lived game show and supposedly created an NBC drama twelve years later. Besides IMDb, I've found no definitive proof that these are even the same guy -- "Jonathan Prince" + "Quiz Kids" + "American Dreams" turned up only IMDb and mirrors, with zero results on GBooks, GNews, or Newspapers.com. Sources about "American Dreams" only say "American Dreams creator Jonathan Prince said blah blah blah" and give zero detail on his career or involvement in the show. He supposedly had producer/writer credits on Blossom and a role in Throb, but again, I could find nothing other than IMDb linking these roles together. Given his relatively normal name, there's a non-zero chance that IMDb may have conflated a couple people. I find it very sus that we have literally nothing to prove all of this is even the same guy.

tl;dr: Seems to have had his fingers in a few pies but nothing passing WP:GNG. Strongly suggest prod or AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmg38:, @220 of Borg: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present in the article certainly don't establish notability. Is there any reason why aren't you submitting it to AfD yourself? NicolausPrime (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolausPrime: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is the reason "TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed" Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly construed should include using WP:BLPN for WP:PROXYING. Reported to AE.[13] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have looked harder. I have added multiple sources based on an "American Dreams" search alone that discusses how he wrote branded content aka advertisements into the show. Searches on newspapers.com during the appropriate time periods discuss some of his tv roles. Unfortunately, I can not review them deeply enough due to the limits of my account. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name suppression in New Zealand and BLP

In New Zealand law we have name suppression for defendants. This is almost always granted upon request and usually (due to appeals and other extensions) extends until around a conviction is secured. Sometimes a defendant may receive permanent name suppression and sometimes this name suppression is breached either locally or internationally. Internationally not much can be done but Members of Parliament have been fined for breach of name suppression before and the NZ media does not report these names. With the digital age there are many crimes where a defendant has a name suppression order beached by foreign media.

So if foreign media report were to report the name of someone with name suppress in NZ should the name be reported in an article related to the crime, or if the subject has an article should the charge/conviction be mentioned in their article? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BLPCRIME. If a person has been convicted and the conviction is reported by multiple RS (foreign or not), it can be reported on Wikipedia subject to discussion of course. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of BLPCRIME, it doesn't address name suppression. 'For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.' could be construed as not reporting names of non-public figures who haven't been convicted although that is quite a stretch. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a stretch. Non-public figures are not supposed to be identified on Wikipedia unless the notoriety of the accusation actually makes them public figures. In cases with name suppression, are they even a public figure without overwhelming (foreign) coverage? Now if they were already a public figure beforehand, then all bets are off. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean, how about following a conviction if name suppression is still granted, this usually happens when someone is appealing a decision but may just be a permanent suppression they've been granted. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conviction can be noted but is subject to discussion on whether it's WP:DUE for inclusion. The only cases I can think of with post-conviction suppression is when the victim is related to the convicted. Factors for discussion would include impact on the victim WP:AVOIDVICTIM and the quality of the sources. It would take a high quality source to do independent verification of a conviction that is locally suppressed. Most foreign sources would just rely on repeating local sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the discussion about Jesse Kempson of interest. The name was kept out of the article by the editing community (with a little help from some policies) for the seemingly eternal duration of its suppression. In short, this site is governed by US law, however in cases like this you need some solid sourcing, not the type of rumour mill where these names often appear. And you'll often need a consensus. Someone without a conviction is going to have a higher threshold to getting named. But at the end of the day, the community decides, usually starting from the most conservative approach. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, the fundamental principle enshrined in policy is that Wikipedia is Not censored and that the primary servers and offices owned by the Wikimedia Foundation are located in the United States and that US First Amendment law applies in general and most broadly. But if an individual Wikipedia editor reveals personally identifying information and that editor violates the repressive laws of their own country, then nothing can protect them from retribution by a dictatorship. Decisions about inclusion or exclusion of contentious content should be made based on policy based arguments, not on any threats to throw a Wikipedia editor into jail, and anyone who makes such threats should be indefinitely blocked. I happen to be an editor who voluntarily discloses lots of personally identifying information because I am an American and consider myself a semi-public figure. I could list a dozen countries where I theoretically might live but don't, but I would not disclose my personal information because that might lead to genuine threats against me and my family. I have had several such threats and risks and do not want more of them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's more nuanced than I thought after reading that: I hadn't considered the angle of widespread breaches leading to an overturned conviction. I don't find the NOTCENSORED arguments too compelling when weighed against ethical and legal (if the conviction were to be overturned due to widespread breaches of a suppression order) considerations. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the other extreme, not NZ but in the case of Talk:George Pell/Archive 1#Conviction of Sexual Offences Against Children and Suppression Order in Victorian County Court his conviction was so widely reported that I don't think there was serious consideration of excluding it. [14]. It's actually mentioned at George Pell#Cathedral trial. A topical sort of related example might be 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident where WP:BDP clearly applies. It's been claimed reporting the victim's name is illegal in India. However it's been widely used during protests including by her family, and widely covered in at least non Indian media so our article does mention it despite continued requests for us to exclude it to the extent there's a very big box at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident to try and stop such requests. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while I didn't follow it that well, for the case of Grace Millane's murderer, I suspect it helped that the murder was primarily of interest in NZ and to a much less extent, the UK. While the UK isn't covered by NZ's laws, and doesn't have such a strong name suppression system, they do have a more similar understanding of subjudice etc to NZ so I think there was probably more willingness from the media there to not publish the name then there would be if it was something which was interest in the US where even naming minors is fairly common [15] (compared to the UK, for example 2024 Southport stabbing and Murder of Brianna Ghey). Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One final example of how these things can get complicated, is with the Killing of Nahel Merzouk. The decedent is named (a minor at the time of his death), and allegation surrounding offences leading up to the killing and more historic ones also. However IIRC and also going by the talk page, I think it was common in France and even in some non French sources to just refer to him as Nahel M, and at least initially only a few sources published anything about allegations of historic offences. The police officer who killed Nahel Merzouk, is still only called Florian M in our article. It sounds like at least one French source did name him in full but I think very few French and other sources did. The protests etc means there was much more focus on Nahel Merzouk than there was on the police officer. I think this means even in France there's no legal requirement not to name either one, although I'm not sure, but instead it's been mostly a matter of cultural norms. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo labeled a "conspiracy theorist" repeatedly without citation, page locked

Luis 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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The talk page for the article in question has resolved this issue. Please see that discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying behaviour is still problematic in regards to not understanding BLP and OR. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Shitposts in biographies

A 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good, but what should happen at the Vance article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards