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.

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.

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)

Question about a professor's article

The Barrett Watten article suffered from a lot of controversy in 2019, kindly overseen by SlimVirgin. We settled on a compromise paragraph to describe the issue. Since the article has been unprotected there have been only occasional attempts by the aggrieved side to make changes. This is five years later; the issue has been settled. The topic is important for the universities dealing with tenured faculty (either inaction or over-reaction), but undue now, given the outcome of the issues, for an article about an academic. Coverage never extended beyond the Chronicle of Higher Education. I have been in conversation with an editor (who turned out to be the subject) on the talk page about current modifications. At this point I believe the paragraph can be removed, but I would like an opinion here, which if in favor I can refer to if opponents come back in force. StarryGrandma (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies... if there are multiple sources (even from the same reliable news site), you can't use WP:BLP to remove the criticism paragraph. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

According to the article sources, Watten was banned from teaching for four years. That seems to be a significant aspect in his career. Schazjmd (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

While the Chronicle is a top notch source for coverage of higher education, it is remarkable that the case wasn't covered elsewhere. At least, I find no mention of Watten at Inside Higher Ed, the Detroit Free Press, or the Detroit News; only the 2 articles at the Chronicle. Likely a four year suspension from teaching should be mentioned, but perhaps it could be covered in a sentence or two? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds about right. For one thing, I'm not sure there's a secondary source for the FIRE intervention. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

same, sounds right... WP:DUE may apply, and that paragraph spends an inordinate amount of time criticizing the prof for the two sources we have Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to object to this discussion; it is made up out of thin air. There was no four year suspension. There were five union grievances and an arbitration. This is discussed on BW's website at length. But the real point is that it is now simply impossible to present an objective view of what occurred without discussing the student mobbing campaign as such, and who needs to do that? It is irrelevant. ThisDirect (talk) 02:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear when or how he was reinstated to teach again since there is no secondary RS on his reinstatement. We just know from his university profile/CV that he started teaching classes again in 2023. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

could we just WP:IGNORE to keep that bit of info in? We can include the citation needed template, but seems useful to balance out the fact professor is not indef banned from teaching which implies the case is probs resolved and in the past. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This is a personnel matter and not public information. ThisDirect (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps not on his reinstatement. But his return to teaching would be public and could be documented by reliable secondary sources. Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. There are no sources that discuss this after 2019. ThisDirect (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you; I would heartily support this solution. I would not be involved in this if it were now not entirely out-of-date; as well, the student campaign was discredited with their attempt to renew it in the CP journal People's World. ThisDirect (talk) 02:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Good heavens! The subject of the article is an American poet. His relevance to the history of late XXth century (& forward) American poetry is what signifies in the article, & it is not at issue.

Now, it's understood, of course, that a person's money-earning profession is relevant to his or her life. Thus, the articles on Wallace Stevens & T.S. Eliot mention their careers as, respectively, a lawyer/business executive & a publisher. But neither article mentions problems in the workplace -- though, surely, anyone who works decades in any profession must have been involved in professional disputes of one kind or another.

How, therefore, is the discomfort some of Watten's students felt about his manner relevant to the article about him? Overall, there seems to be no pattern of problems in general with student evaluations of Watten -- see https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/182653. Nor does anyone appear to question the material he taught or his way with that material.

What seems obvious, at least to this reader, is that someone has a problem with Watten, a personal problem, an axe to grind, something of that kind. I find it difficult to imagine that Wikipedia is the right place for this person to work out his problem. Not even if he has a legitimate beef with the man! Put it on Facebook, make a youtube video, stick it on Tik Tok (whatever that is!). Not on Wikipeia, however.

My 2 cents.... Historyofpoetry (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

If a lawyer were disbarred for a few years their article would definitely mention that. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with MrOllie on this one. An encyclopedia summarizes what is already published in reliable sources, good or bad. We don't take sides, we just publish what has been written about them. If this info comes from a reliable source, then it technically can be included. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be included, and even if it should it is still subject to other parts of policy, particularly WP:Weight and WP:Balance.

Apparently, whatever it was about got him suspended from his job, so that seems like something very significant to his career, that is, something that should be included. But are we giving it too much weight? I think it's very probable. Don't discount the effect weight can have on information, it's often far more than the info itself. I think it could probably be whittled down to a sentence or two, or maybe it doesn't even deserve that much. Deciding weight is dependent not only on how much coverage it got, but also by how much coverage everything else got. For example, if you were able to expand the rest of the article with more sources, then it would give this even less weight. The idea is to proportion the info in the same way it's found in the sources. Keep in mind that all sources are not created equal and the reliability of them is not black and white. Better sources carry more weight.

Nobody discounts the subject's notability or contribution to the world of poetry. That's not in dispute. If this were a mere traffic ticket that somehow made the news, that wouldn't be significant enough to be included, but I think everyone here would agree that something that got a person suspended from their job is a rather significant thing in their lives. I'm still not sure what the thing was that precipitated the suspension; that needs to be made clear. But then the argument really becomes one of weight and balance. Does it deserve an entire paragraph? Would a single sentence be more fitting, or would even that be too much? Can we even tell it with enough detail to make it clear in a single sentence (if that's all it deserves), because if not then that's another good argument to omit it. These are the things you should be looking into. What's not a convincing argument is saying everyone else has axes to grind, or coming in with the attitude that we're all stupid because we don't have degrees in this particular field. Those kinds of arguments not only get you nowhere, but they also tend to ward off any editors who would otherwise take an interest and try to help (like me). Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

This is well-considered & might provide a sound basis for framing this incident. Historyofpoetry (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

"Disbarred"? Where's the relevance of your comparison? As it happens, I know something about disbarment. For that matter, perhaps you should read the Wikipedia article on disbarment. A disbarred attorney is not "suspended," he's ousted. He is no longer able to practice his profession at all. Forthat matter, your own comment illustrates the problem with the passage: no, Watten was not "suspended from his job," he remained a professor at his same institution. I presume he continued to advise grad students whose theses he was overseeing. He certainly seems to have continued to publish, attend scholarly events, present at them, etc. He was suspended from teaching classes while an investigation was pursued. Once the investigation was complete he returned to teaching. Nothing to do with an attorney being disbarred. You may also wish to read the report on the situation by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (thefire.org).

In any case, the foundation of your point is missing. This is not a biography of a professor; it's not a professional resume either. It's an article about an American poet. The article exists because (& only because) of the significance of his work as a poet. Certainly that's why instead of working on my own projects I'm spending precious time trying to prevent someone (I don't know who) from using Wikipedia as a hatchet on the reputation of a poet. Over & out. Historyofpoetry (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Disbarment is what we call it when a lawyer isn't allowed to work as a lawyer. Folks do get reinstated after a disbarment. This was plainly a major event in the biography subject's career, and you are doing your argument no favors by denying what is obvious to everyone. MrOllie (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well done, MrOllie; your response came quickly enough that it would have been impossible to have read & considered my paragraphs. Thus, I guess, we should conclude that there was no reason for you to read them, no reason to make an effort to understand them.

No need, b/c you have your guiding metaphor. Watten should be treated like a disbarred attorney, because some graduate students complained about his manner & his university quelled the complain by removing him from teaching for a period.

Now, let it be said that once a person is convinced of something (e.g. by a metaphor like disbarment), it's usually difficult to stimulate that person to an all-new consideration. Thus, I expect no change in what you write.

I do feel pretty certain, however, that at some point in the future, in an altogether different context, you will recall the first sentence of this paragraph & that it will help you think through another subject altogether, who knows what. At least I hope that will be the case.

In the meantime, no matter what else you or anyone writes here, it is altogether obvious that the intention of the original writer of these sentences was to attack Watten. Pure & simple. That's not how Wikipedia should be used. Historyofpoetry (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I read quickly and your prose is clear and easy to understand. I just disagree with its content. I used disbarment as an analogy because you mentioned a poet who was also a lawyer. MrOllie (talk) 01:11, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

) -- thanks for the compliment.

Let me ask you to respond directly to my last short paragraph: do you or do you not recognize that the original text about Watten's demeanor in relating to students was inserted in the article as an attack on him? Almost certainly was inserted by one of the very same group of students who objected to said behavior?

If you do agree, then any paragraph about the issue is subject to a "fruit of a poisoned tree" argument.

If, OTOH, you don't agree... well, I don't see how anyone could fail to see something so obvious.

Hence, it is -- to me at least -- clear as day that someone used Wikipedia as a weapon against a person that someone wished to discredit. Do you really fail to see that? Historyofpoetry (talk) 01:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I reject the premise of the question. The motivation of the initial edit is irrelevant, only the current state of the article is of interest. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course disbarment is a false analogy. BW is a tenured professor; there was an internal complaint, and it is a personnel matter. It bled into the public domain in 2019 but has been internal since then. The articles cited were from 2019; it is 2024, and StarryGrandma was correct that they are no longer timely. They just aren't.

Historyofpoetry also makes an important point. The subject is a professor and critic but is historically important as a poet and early founder of well-known movement in American literature, which is supported by the Wiki page for Language writing and numerous pages for colleagues in the movement (all of which were removed by hapless editors). All this is well known to anyone concerned with contemporary American poetry. What that shows is how little the editors know about the subject area, yet they feel entitled to cancel and suppress valuable and verifiable content. Pointing out their lack of knowledge has, as well, led to retaliation. ThisDirect (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You've been getting leeway because it is normal for an aggrieved COI editor to lash out a bit, but you should know that the patience of the Wikipedia community has limits. If you keep making personal attacks and aspersians like Pointing out their lack of knowledge has, as well, led to retaliation you can expect that your account will be blocked sooner or later. It will not be because of 'retaliation' - it will be because of an inability to civilly and constructively work with others. MrOllie (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Pointing out lack of knowledge is absolutely relevant. And you are being threatening.

Here is what I wrote StarryGrandma. Please take a look at comparable sites for comparison; what you people have done is way below standards for writers of my generation:

I ask you to look at comparable pages for BW's peers among Language writers: Lyn Hejinian, Charles Bernstein, Carla Harryman, Clark Coolidge, Bob Perelman, Kit Robinson, etc. Some are extensively written, with interpretive content (about the significance of the work); others are less so, but all have comprehensive bibliographies. BW's bibliography has been entirely erased. This is simply wanton aggression. Please see the author's faculty page and restore this material--it is the baseline for any article on a contemporary writers. Amazing.

https://clasprofiles.wayne.edu/profile/ad6155

I can provide the Dictionary of Literary Biography article from 1998 as well. That is an entirely reputable source. ThisDirect (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

"I can provide the Dictionary of Literary Biography article from 1998 as well"

Please do. A link, DOI, or ISBN should work. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The relevant article is: Debrot, Jacques. "Barrett Watten." American Poets Since World War II: Sixth Series, edited by Joseph Mark Conte, Gale, 1998. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 193. Gale Literature Resource Center, Gale Document Number H1200008044.

It's not very biographically useful but it does discuss several of his major works. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, any good link? Or should I try interlibrary loans? GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 21:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@GeogSage, send me an email and I'll be able to send you the pdf. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sent! GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is a pdf of the Debrot article, published in Dictonary of Literary Biography--this is an impeccable source, and should suffice for any reference before date of publication, 1998,

https://barrettwatten.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/watten-dlb-entry.pdf

Next, a pdf of the introduction the special issue of Aerial titled "Barrett Watten: Contemporary Poetics as Critical Theory." This is a 300-page volume with dozens of contributors reading BW's work, and is in a series of featured authors including John Cage, Bruce Andrews, and Lyn Hejinian.

https://barrettwatten.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/watten-aerial-toc.pdf

Finally, a pdf of Manuel Brito's 2011 introduction to an edited volume titled "Los mejores poetas americanos contemporáneos: Charles Bernstein, Lyn Hejinian, Ron Silliman, Barrett Watten." Translated to English, this means "The best contemporary American poets: Charles Bernstein, Lyn Hejinian, Ron Silliman, Barrett Watten." The introduction is Spanish but shows the seriousness with which BW's work is read, and testifies to an international reputation.

https://barrettwatten.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/watten-brito-intro.pdf

Similar evidence is found in the just-published 400-page bilingual Selected Writings: Not This: Selected Writings/Не то: Избранные тексты. Ed. Vladimir Feshchenko. Moscow: Polyphem, 2024. The volume is published and includes works from the complete oeuvre. This should supply secondary evidence if such is needed for all the primary works; please restore the bibliography.

The pdf will be supplied shortly. This should give ample basis for overturning the cuts to the article. See also numerous referred articles and chapters, which were also cut. These are secondary sources without question within Wikipedia's guidelines. Many of them have online links; this list of secondary sources is exceptional for a contemporary author; please restore:

Selected critical discussion

Chapters and articles

• Hejinian, Lyn. “The Sad Note in the Poetics of Consciousness.” Allegorical Moments: Call to the Everyday. Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan UP, 2023.
• Sokolova, Olga V., and Ekaterina Zakharkiv. “Лингвопрагматические сдвиги в новейшей поэзии: Российско-американские параллели” (Linguopragmatic Shifts in Recent Poetry: Russian-American Parallels). Литература двух Америк (Literature of the Americas) no. 12 (2022).
• Kreiner, Timothy. “The Politics of Language Writing and the Subject of History.” In Annie McClanahan, ed., special issue on “Deindustrialization and the New Cultures of Work.” Post45 no. 1 (1 January 2019).
• https://post45.org/2019/01/the-politics-of-language-writing-and-the-subject-of-history/
• Brito, Mañuel. “Nonnarrative and History in Barrett Watten’s Under Erasure.” Atlantis: Revista de la asociatión española de estudios anglo-norteamericanos 40, no. 1 (June) 2018.
• Wedell, Noura. “Progress Toward New Sentimental Educations: How Contextual and Constructivist Poetics Reframe Issues of Distribution.” Special issue, “Poètes et éditeurs: diffuser la poésie d’avant-gare américaine.” IdeAs/Idées d’Amérique 9 (Spring2017).
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318427895_Progress_toward_New_Sentimental_Educations_How_Contextual_and_Constructivist_Poetics_Reframe_Issues_of_Distribution
• Fischer, Norman. “Total Absence and Total Presence in the Work of Barrett Watten.” Experience: Thinking, Writing, Language, & Religion. Tuscaloosa: U Alabama P, 2015.
• Chaitas, Lilian. “The Duncan/Watten Debat/cl/e” and “Stalin as Linguist.” Being Different: Strategies of Distinction and Twentieth-Century American Poetic Avant-Gardes. Leiden, Neth.: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2017.
• Brito, Mañuel. “Formas y estructuras poéticas en Barrett Watten” (Poetic forms and structures in Barrett Watten). Los mejores poetas americanos contemporáneos: Charles Bernstein, Lyn Hejinian, Ron Silliman, Barrett Watten. Ed. Brito. Madrid: Ediciones literarias mandala, 2011.
• Aji, Hélène. “Barrett Watten: Poetry and Historiography.” Poetry and Public Language, ed. Tony Lopez and Anthony Caleshu. Exeter, U.K.: Shearsman Books, 2007.
• Arnold, David. “‘Just Rehashed Surrealism?”: The Writing of Barrett Watten.” Poetry and Language Writing: Objective and Surreal. Liverpool: Liverpool UP, 2007.
• Blazer, Alex. “Barrett Watten: From the Other Side of the Machine.” I Am Otherwise: The Romance Between Poetry and Theory After the Death of the Subject. Normal, Ill.: Dalkey Archive Press, 2007.
• Hugill, Piers. “Watten & Hejinian (‘What, no, begin again?): or Poetry as Language’s ‘State of Emergency.’” Poetry and Public Language, ed. Tony Lopez and Anthony Caleshu. Exeter, U.K.: Shearsman Books, 2007.
• Metres, Philip. “Barrett Watten’s Bad History.” Behind the Lines: War Resistance Poetry on the American Homefront since 1941. Iowa City: U Iowa P, 2007

Reviews

• Heuving, Jeanne. Review of Questions of Poetics: Language Writing and Consequences. American Literature 91, no. 4 (December 2019): 905–7.
• https://read.dukeupress.edu/american-literature/article-abstract/91/4/905/141501/Questions-of-Poetics-Language-Writing-and
• Williams, Tyrone. “Examples Of: On Barrett Watten’s Questions.” Review of Questions of Poetics. Jacket2 (18 January 2019).
• https://jacket2.org/reviews/examples
• Harley, Luke. “Searchlight Intelligence.: Barrett Watten’s Critical Poetics.” Review of Questions of Poetics. Journal of Poetics Research no. 9 (31 August 2018).
• Grant Matthew Jenkins. Review of Questions of Poetics. ALH Online Review, ser. 14:1 (2017).
• https://academic.oup.com/DocumentLibrary/ALH/Online%20Review%20Series%2014/14Grant%20Jenkins.pdf
• Segal, Eyal. Review of A Guide to Poetics Journal: Writing in the Expanded Field, 1982–1998. Poetics Today 38, no. 4 (2017).
• Barry Schwabsky. “Reader’s Diary: Barrett Watten’s Questions of Poetics.” Hyperallergic (6 November 2016).
• https://hyperallergic.com/334998/readers-diary-barrett-watten-questions-of-poetics/
• Almon, B. Review of Diasporic Avant-Gardes: Experimental Poetics and Cultural Displacement. Choice 47, no. 10 (June 2010).

ThisDirect (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

To repeat: you do not know the content area, it is evident. Can you answer simply, and in one sentence, "What is Language writing?" and "Why is it an historically important literary movement?" What is "the turn to language" in philosophy and art? I think you cannot. We can go from there. What is the "American Comparative Literature Association" and why is the "Wellek Prize" estimable? What is a "Senior Fulbright Fellowship" and why is that information not on the page? What is "FIRE" and why does there public advocacy matter; what is "due process"? Why was reference to a 400-page bilingual selected writing published this year in Russia removed, along with similar verifiable references? ThisDirect (talk) 02:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am not threatening you - I will not block you personally, since I am not an admin here and cannot. But I have been around Wikipedia long enough to have seen similar situations many times before, and the path you are on nearly always leads to a block. I decline to jump through any arbitrary hoops or participate in any quizzes you might like to assign, I am not one of your students. MrOllie (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think antagonism toward professors is an issue here, when it comes to knowing about subject matter which you purport to moderate. You people have managed to turn a reasonably useful site into a garbage dump in ten easy steps. Please do what I have asked and take look at the peer sites to see what the standards are; they differ, but all of them have bibliographies. Why the bibliography was erased is truly a mystery--it is the baseline of verification, and all the works can easily be found online. / The thing is, I know you won't do what I am asking here, just like I know you did not consider--think about--what HistoryofPoetry wrote. / Finally, I am asking for oversight and review. I cannot imagine how that would lead to a block, except as pure censorship. ThisDirect (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

If you really want the attention of the administrators, feel free to present your case at WP:ANI. I highly recommend that you read WP:BOOMERANG first, though. MrOllie (talk) 02:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm the one who largely converted the bibliography from a list to prose. I was drawn to the article because of it popping up here, and found that most of the content in the list was already mentioned within the main body of the article. I believed that the list was excessive, and know that we often limit bibliographies to a few key publications here rather then being comprehensive. I simply removed the redundant content, and what was left was easily incorporated into the rest of the existing text. I understand prose rather then lists is the gold standard, as I stated on the talk page of the main article. I pointed to the example of Waldo Tobler, who's section on "Research and publications" is detailing the content of the publications, rather then listing out his works. Anyone who recognizes my user name knows I generally dislike lists of publications, and as there has been resistance to switching to tables, I try to use prose. I do not know the subject and am in no way affiliated with them to the best of my knowledge. My changing the bibliography was because I thought it was a poorly formatted, overly detailed, disaster. You can disagree with that opinion of mine, but I assure you, I hold no antagonism towards professors. You can check my user profile and look at my bio. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 03:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please consult the wiki pages of peer authors--they all have bibliographies. In my field, or fields, it is essential. I'm asking you to restore. Here are the comps:

Lyn Hejinian / Clark Coolidge / Charles Bernstein / Bob Perelman / Bruce Andrews / Kit Robinson / Carla Harryman / Michael Palmer / Rae Armantrout / Ted Pearson

These are all poets of my literary movement; they all have high degrees of recognition. Lyn Hejinian just died and the Times published a full page obituary, which mentions our work together--which was important in literary history.

https://nyti.ms/3PIaTpO

What is also important to know is that in literature there is often a high degree of relationality among authors. That has been the case ever since the Romantics, if not before. If this does not seem familiar to you, then I do suggest giving over to someone who would know the field enough to get the point.

If you can't do it, tell me whom to appeal to. Thanks, ThisDirect ThisDirect (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Comprehensive bibliographies in an authors biography aren't very encyclopedic. Look at the Encyclopedia Britannica article for Robert Frost, specifically his works, and you'll see an example of what I mean by "Gold standard" for discussing an author. On Wikipedia, look at Edgar Allan Poe. He has a "List of selected works," and a separate page for Edgar Allan Poe bibliography. As the bibliography is itself noteworthy, it warrants a separate comprehensive page. On Wikipedia, Robert Frost has a section for "select works," not a comprehensive one, with a page for List of poems by Robert Frost. At least one of your examples, Kit Robinson has a section for "select works," not a comprehensive one and no separate list article. The list of works on the Watten article had become unwieldy in my opinion and was the reason the article had been tagged with looking like a "resume." It was clearly copy pasted directly from their faculty page, and had "link here" throughout it with no links. This shows the list does exist elsewhere, and was not a unique feature to the Wikipedia page. I was attempting to resolve this tag by converting the content to prose, which I found was already in the body of the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists states that when doing lists of work, we should "Consider whether prose is more appropriate." I think it was more appropriate, especially since I was able to find most of the works already mentioned throughout the body of the article, and given the maintenance tag think other editors agreed. I tend to support the idea of creating separate list articles for academics to house their bibliographies, and think authors should have the same, as is the case with Poe and Frost. Such a list needs separate verification for notability though, which others may or may not agree with. If another editor wants to come in and discuss the merits of lists vs prose or the possibility of creating a separate page for a list article detailing the content, I'm open to their input. When it comes to Encyclopedic content and formatting on Wikipedia, I don't think you're very familiar with the conventions. However, I'll post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poetry and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment and entertainment to see if anyone who is more into this is interested in joining the discussion. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

All the authors I mentioned as comps have bibliographies; the DLB article cited above begins with a bibliography. This is a convention and the practice at Wiki; please restore. ThisDirect (talk) 13:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The author you named, "Kit Robinson," does not have a comprehensive bibliography. Their page implies that it is a list of select works. I have shown you plenty of counter examples to demonstrate that shifting to prose is appropriate. As the page had been given a maintenance tag indicating it looked like a resume, and as the content was literally lifted from the faculty page, restoring it would also mean restoring that maintenance tag. If other editors want to discuss this, then I'd consider not fighting them on it, but it seems you're the only one upset by this. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the maintenance tag was a part of a larger takedown, and some of that may be part of the "scam" that I am now aware of. I will be documenting that. But the main point is--I gave you a number of authors to look at in my area. They all have bibliographies. The bibliographic material that was on my page was already very selective--my working bibliography, for my archive here, is 160 pp. long. Finally, other kinds of art--cinema, jazz, classical, streaming video, actors, etc. all have comprehensive documentation in non narrative form--because users want that detail. They want to know all the movies X was in, and the dates, in a series, not just discussion of the best known ones. That is the basic practice out there, and there is no need to impose your preference. Please do restore the biblio to the minimal titles on the faculty page, and do include the Russian Selected Writings as that is now published. ThisDirect (talk) 19:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

"Very selective" is not how I would characterize a bibliography that includes book chapters or reviews by the subject, which the previous version did. So a new, actually-selective bibliography must be compiled, rather than simply reinstating the previous over-long one. I do think, in theory, a bibliography could have a place in the article, though I also agree with GeogSage that a good prose explanation is more valuable. See Suzanne Conklin Akbari for an example of a scholar bio which gives a one-sentence gloss of the main content or impact of the books, to which the list of works is more of an afterthought. But I don't expect that I will write such a thing myself any time soon. If you would like to see additions on the article, the appropriate course of action is to place an edit request on the talk page (allowing any uninvolved editor to evaluate the request and step in), not to badger GeogSage, who has been very generous at this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see the goodwill here, frankly. The editors are over their heads. Chapters in edited volumes and articles in refereed journals are standard by the subject are standard. The selection is simply show recent titles--the actual bib is much longer. And then all the secondary scholarship and edited volume, plus biographical article, were removed. Shocking and unprincipled. I note also the in-group/out-group relations of the editors; you all seem to know each other but someone who knows the subject, or more precisely the field of literature, is called out. This is mockery of objectivity; I don't know what's in it for you people except you get to exert authority where you actually do not have any. ThisDirect (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If you would like a change to be made to the article, the process for that is to place an edit request on the Talk page. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@ThisDirect, I would like to draw your attention to Wikipedia's principles, since you appear to believe we have none: they are listed at WP:5P. All of them are relevant to this discussion, but perhaps most relevant right now is the fourth, which states, "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility". You have already been warned about this multiple times, by multiple editors. Please consider this your final warning. -- asilvering (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to agree with Asilvering here. Goodwill is not something you seem interesting in eliciting. GeogSage and LEvalyn apparently have the goodwill and patience of saints, but you wore out mine out long ago. There's an old saying about catching more flies with honey, but this acidic, dour approach is not helping you one bit. It's only hurting you. What also doesn't help is the overly emotional yet logically flawed arguments. Appeal to emotion and argument from authority are fallacies which will never convince anyone, as well as the other logical fallacies you use. I'm telling you this not to hurt you, but to help, and if you don't see that (or the goodwill other are putting forth) then I truly feel sorry for you. You could use this information to your benefit if you so choose. If you continue on your current path I foresee a block coming in the very near future. I hope that helps, and good luck to you. Zaereth (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry that the comments seemed disrespectful. Actually, they are disagreement on principle, and also alarm at the possibility of scam in this process, which I've discussed. I'm very concerned that this takedown not continue. If Wiki editors want to work on positive content, which is fully supportable and most of which has been erased, I'm all in. As for "authority," that's what authors are about. They are the source of their authorship and know something about it; one hopes those without knowledge of the field, the area of literature, the formal innovation, and so forth, would want to learn something about it. LMK! ThisDirect (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The current state of the article deletes massive amounts of verifiable information--much of which has been on the site since its inception--and massacres the history at Wayne State, introducing falsehoods and censoring public sources. I'm asking for a review of the actions that were taken and a restoration of the site to its condition a week ago. We can still talk about the Wayne State narrative, but what is happening here is pure retaliation for my objecting to edits (and to comments on another site).

There is a serious lack of knowledge of the content area on the part of the editors, and it is also clear that they do not read print literature; they only compile digital sources. There is no indication that they have read my entry in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, for instance, and that dates to 1998. They have no idea what an "edited volume" is. They have not consulted the many secondary sources that were provided, after erasing their digital addresses. They have removed all my publications, critical works, poems, everything. What do people consult a site for? For information. All of these support the content that the page, up until last week, was putting forward.

I can supply resources that can be used to reconstruct the site. But someone needs to step forward to do this. As I have said, I have received a scam solicitation from a "wiki crafter" and that does not rule out that one of these editors might be involved.

Will be able to assist with this; if not, who might? Would Slimvirgin or Christian Roess, the founder of the site? ThisDirect (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@ThisDirect, please see WP:SCAM and contact paid-en-wpwikipedia.org immediately if you have been targetted by a scam. As for SlimVirgin, she cannot help you, as she is deceased; I have no idea who Christian Roess is, but he is not the founder of this site. -- asilvering (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about SlimVirgin. I suspect there is a scam here, yes. Christian Roess was an early editor, if not founder, of the site. ThisDirect (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@ThisDirect, "Site" refers to Wikipedia in its entirety. I think what you're trying to say is that Christian Roess is the WP editor who first created the Barrett Watten article, as can be seen here. He last edited that article in 2019, but he's still an active WP editor, and you can contact him on his talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I posted on Christian Roess's talk page to see if he wants to dive in here. Maybe he's AFK or taking a break for a bit or not following the page any more. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 19:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I am concerned that ThisDirect and SPA/COI editor Historyofpoetry are directly editing this article in a fairly aggressive manner. It would be good to get a consensus on text for the incident from uninvolved editors. For comparison, here is the version left by SlimVirgin [1]. I would prefer something briefer. What is currently in the article is brief, but is written mostly by COI editors, and I do not think it follows the reliable sources well. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem here is that that solution was responding to the "flaming" on the site by the students. Much has happened since then; it is out of date. Returning to the earlier version is in fact highly inaccurate. The test here is when the same group of students tried to publish their narrative on People's World, it was removed as unverifiable. And it is.

Look, you folks are over your heads. That is why Thisdirect got involved--the site was badly in need of editing and accuracy. Cobbling together an author page from random material plus a flame does no justice. And you have excluded competing narratives, showing bias on the part of editors. I strong concur with Starrygrandma at this late date--enough is enough of what was a bad case of mobbing, and should not be preserved on Wiki.

Uninvolved editors will not have any objective relation to this incident. Most of the documents are not public. There has been a lengthy process. It is a personnel matter. And there is little insight on the part of editors into why this happened. Basically, the student had a paper due which BW was supposed to grade. That did not get into the Chronicle article, how about that. ThisDirect (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

God I hate having to do this. But... there is no choice:

1. Even SlimVirgin's text is problematic: it reads -- "As outlined in a report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, over the years Watten's behavior, allegedly short-tempered and hostile, had made many students and faculty uncomfortable."

The syntax says "As outlined in a report,... Watten's behavior... had made many students & faculty uncomfortable." This is a claim as to fact. It is claimed as fact not opinion that Watten's behavior made some people uncomfortable. I.e. it's his fault -- he "made them..."

2. Moreover, the source is referred to as "a report" -- not a journalist's article but "a report." There's an inherent claim to objectivity in that language.

Did you ever have a professor you didn't like? Hmmm? Oh, you did? I did too.

But I'm old enough that there wasn't a handy dandy tool like Wikipedia which I could turn effortlessly to the purpose of staining his reputation.

Watten's a poet. You probably won't be surprised to learn that I'm one too. But I was also an Internet entrepreneur, a technology consultant, a college professor, & a short order cook. I'm not here to defend Watten; he'll have to take care of himself. I'm here to defend poetry -- &, believe it or not, to do my bit to protect Wikipedia from being used as a tool to attack someone.

The sentences at question were -- obviously! -- written originally with the purpose of attacking Watten. No rewrite will erase that purpose. You'll just have to leave them out. Historyofpoetry (talk) 00:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I looked at the article, and the paragraph in question seems like an excellent inclusion for someone who is interested in this person. If you were looking to portray them in media in 100 years, this paragraph might be more useful then other more mundane stuff. It passes verification and is highly relevant. The fact they returned to teaching indicates to me that this was likely not the most serious of infractions.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Only 10% of the important issues are in the early articles. And you have left out lengthy writings on the BW website plus the public letter to Wayne State by FERPA. What does it take to convince you people that this in no way "passes verification." it is space junk from a cancel campaign--over which there are many. Wiki should not be used for such purposes, and it was. You need to defend Wiki in this sense. The above editors judgments btw are based on absolutely nothing; they are tea leaves. If it happens that there serious objections to what remains up there--and there are--they need to be listened to. ThisDirect (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll say this: the article is awful. It's a mess of WP:Proseline that reads like a resume rather than an encyclopedia article. Much of it glosses over whatever point is hidden in there and overwhelms the reader with trivial detail. In short, it's a nightmare to read and needs to be rewritten in summary style.

The contested paragraph is also just as confusing. I read it ten times and I'm still not sure what it's trying to say. For example, the first sentence reads, "At Wayne State University in 2019, some students alleging hostile interactions to university administration..." It's an incomplete sentence that doesn't really say anything. What does "hostile interactions" mean? What's the point of this paragraph? What actually happened? It's, like, full of euphemisms and beating around the bush, yet never directly states what it is all about. I haven't read the sources but have a feeling this could probably be summarized down to a sentence or two in a much more direct and succinct manner. But the entire article needs that, not just this one paragraph.

To ThisDirect, your objections and logic is also very hard to follow. Much of it is overshadowed by the tone of anger and outrage, which speaks volumes yet masks any good points you may have. You keep talking about "flaming", but what is that supposed to mean? I haven't a clue. Cancel campaign? Space junk? Tea leaves? I wish I could help but you're speaking in riddles, and the overall tone of your comments is a huge turn off. It makes me not want to get involved at all, and I'm sure a lot of other uninvolved editors here feel the same. Thus, I'll leave you all with my critique and advice and wish you good luck. Zaereth (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

The first sentence is likely my fault, I was attempting to fix the sentence to better align with the source by removing the line "social media campaign." I have reworded the line again, and tried to state the allegations directly. I cited the specific allegations from the source to try and maintain neutrality and align with what the source says. If you can revise further, please do so. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are speaking from a position of real ignorance in terms of the area this article represents. Go read up on Language poetry and come ba k. 35.128.24.90 (talk) 20:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

See, that kind of response is not going to help you achieve your goals. I may be ignorant about poetry, but outside of song lyrics it's not one of my interests, so I couldn't care less. Doesn't matter, because an encyclopedia article is not poetry. It's a very formal subset of expository style written as a very concise summary, the shorter the better. For this, I have a lot of training and real life experience that far predates Wikipedia and the internet. Poets don't write to be understood, which is the opposite of how an encyclopedia should be written. Zaereth (talk) 20:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Look, there is a field of knowledge called literary studies, or poetics, or poetry. The subject is a highly visible and accomplished poet and critic; that's why there's the bibliography. In turn, the work connects to a large network of poets and critics. Please leave alone what you don't know about, is the point.

As for encyclopedia articles--a quick glance at Wiki pages in popular culture or movies shows incredible overkill of detail, often written by professional PR people. There is obviously a very wide range of standards here. ThisDirect (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of crappy articles here. It's a by-product of user-generated content. We have tons of scientific articles written by scientists that are only useful to other scientists. Pop-culture and movies are often way over the top. We're not talking about any of those. Let me ask you this, do you really think the argument that "other crappy articles exist so this one should be crappy too" is a good one? Wouldn't it be better to to make this into one of the really good articles? It would reflect far better on the subject that way, and shouldn't that be your goal? Your statement can cut both ways. If you don't know about encyclopedic writing maybe it's best to leave that alone. I gave my assessment of this article and that's all I'm inclined to do. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

ThisDirect, I see that Zaereth has given you some good advice, including the warning that your aggressive and hostile messages are likely to ward off any editors who would otherwise take an interest and try to help. As someone who writes about literary scholarship as my bread and butter, I am very nearly warded off. We are all volunteers here who can choose what we work on. But we also do in fact want Wikipedia to be an accurate, useful, informative encyclopedia. So for this article, it would indeed be quite helpful to incorporate material from the DLB, for example, and to make sure the article is overall balanced in its coverage.

If you have concrete suggestions on how to achieve that -- something like "Here are some sentences to add, based on this source" -- the appropriate process is for you to post an edit request on the article talk page, using the COI edit request template. (That instruction was also provided on your Talk page.) If you are willing to approach the article's improvements iteratively and collaboratively, you may also ping me by including {{u|LEvalyn}} in your edit requests, and I will take a look. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your good thoughts. This process has become very time consuming, as the undoing of a quite organized and rationalized page (see about a month ago) involves myriad changes to restore the baseline material. Far easier would be to go back to the prior version. I have put a number of secondary sources in the copy above, and provided urls for pdfs of some of them. But there is much much more in terms of the reception of the work. / At the same time, I think the aggressive editing--which occasioned my response--may have something to do with a scam as I was approached by an offshore "wikicrafter"--located in Pakistan I found out--who would fix it for a fee, and would keep charging every time a change was made. That is an opening to corruption of the whole process. ThisDirect (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Lea Haggett

I'm trying to confirm that this person is actually deceased. There is a death date in the article which has HAGGETT, LEA MAUREEN, 1972 GRO Reference: DOR Q2/2014 in Kent (564-1Y) Entry Number 510398914 as the reference, but I don't know how to access that information to confirm if it's right. Please also see the talkpage of Lea's article, where there has been a back-and-fourth with claims from people apparently related/connected to her, but fail to supply anything concrete. Google searches only bring up the following https://forum.athleticsweekly.com/forum/current-events/39336-lea-goodman-nee-haggett with literally nothing else online (that I could find) to support her death. Any help with this mystery would be appreciated. Thank you 2A00:23C8:3091:9000:A78C:CDF8:BE2A:387F (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sources announcing her death, for Lea Haggett or Lea Goodman, and there is no other info in the article pertaining to her death. It's a mystery to me what that reference means as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The death date and incomprehensible citation were added by Kwib in this series of edits in 2020. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

GRO = General Register Office for England and Wales Schazjmd (talk) 13:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I found a birth registration from the GRO for her and apparently her twin brother, both had same dob, both had same mother's maiden name and both born in the same district. I couldn't find any death registration with the GRO though for Haggett or Goodman. My assumption is that reference is pertaining to her death certificate, weird though how her death doesn't seem to be documented in sources, that I can find, considering her past notability for representing Great Britain at the 1996 Olympic Games. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have just double checked the GRO reference that I added (General Register Office for England and Wales) and it is correct. It can be checked at the GRO website https://www.gro.gov.uk. Kwib (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Kwib that's just a generic link, do you have a more specific link, or an archived copy, or a screenshot? Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I can take a screenshot, no problem. What is the best way to then share this? To load it to Wikimedia? Kwib (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Kwib - have you got the screenshot? it doesn't have to go on wikimedia, any site that can upload a free image will do. thank you

Kwib any help you can provide here would be much appreciated. On a personal note, I do find it incredibly odd that there is no coverage on this person's death anywhere online, seeing as she was a multiple UK champion in the 1990s, won a world junior championship medal, and went to the Olympics. For someone who supposedly died just over ten years ago, and that no-one can uncover anything apart from this generic GRO page, I have my doubts on this being true. But, of course, I could be wrong. 2A00:23C8:3091:9000:A78C:CDF8:BE2A:387F (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Kwib You've been editing since these requests were posted here. Please can you provide the screenshot AND the URL of the GRO reference so it can be checked by other users? Isaidnoway I shall drop a note on Kwib's talkpage to alert them to the progress of this conversation and the doubts that have been raised. If nothing can be found to support the death of the subject, I will update her article to remove that information. Thank you. 2A00:23C8:3091:9000:A78C:CDF8:BE2A:387F (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for posting on my page. I had not received a notification of the 4 October posting and I appreciate your diligence in following up. I have uploaded a screenshot of the GRO reference here: https://ibb.co/q9qT0DG

The URL I am afraid will simply take you to the GRO website and then you would have to navigate by looking for Lea Haggett. It seems the website is not configured to allow a link directly to the reference. I would note that the reference I supplied is absolutely verifiable, but would involve physically looking at the index or utilising the reference to obtain the death certificate.

I have also uploaded the front page of the Order of Service from Lea's Memorial service. In general, my edits are not connected with me personally. In the case of Lea, she was a friend to a family member, and that family member attended her funeral. Here is that image: https://ibb.co/jWrxqJD

I am also genuinely astonished that there is virtually nothing online pertaining to Lea's death. The fact that a former elite athlete has been so easily overlooked is something that ought to be remedied. I have a mind to write to Athletics Weekly to suggest they do a piece on Lea. Thanks again. Kwib (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Photo

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

---

i am Muhammad fazal ur Rehman PRO to Governor KP Faisal Kareem kundi Please change photo this pic is wrong 86.106.182.119 (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I assume this is about Faisal Karim Kundi? This seems to be his page on the National Assembly of Pakistan website, with a photo. The first source linked in our article also has a photo. I'll freely admit that I am Not Good at faces, but these all look plausibly like the same person to me.

Our image is cropped from File:A delegation from the Pakistan National Assembly and Pakistan Institute of Legislative Development and Transparency (PILDAT) headed by the Deputy Speaker of Pakistan National Assembly.jpg, which is produced by the Indian government. Their caption doesn't make it clear which of the men is meant to be Kundi, but does suggest that Kundi is in that photo. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say the same thing, but Caeciliusinhorto beat me to it. If this is not the correct photo, perhaps you can tell us which one in the original is? If it's just not a great photo, we can only use what we have, but you're welcome to upload one of your own provided you either own the copyright or get permission from whoever does. Zaereth (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a very unflattering photo. The solution is to upload a better quality freely licensed photo to Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedia and elsewhere. Cullen328 (talk) 00:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not. We could certainly use a better one. I figured if the OP is truly the subject's public relations officer they'd likely have access to a better one. Normally, I'd give some instructions on how to do that, but I no longer know how that works for IP editors. Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Proposal: Exclusion of Dating, Live-In Relationships, and Broken Engagements from BLP Articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force

Dear editors,

I propose the addition of a clause under the Indian Cinema Task Force's Manual of Style (WP:ICTFMOS) that explicitly excludes details about dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements from BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force. This suggestion follows a concerning trend where these personal aspects are disproportionately highlighted, often overshadowing a celebrity's professional achievements.

In the Indian entertainment industry, particularly among A-list celebrities and prominent television personalities, there is a growing trend of using staged relationships, live-in arrangements, and broken engagements as strategic PR tools. While celebrities have the right to discuss their personal lives publicly, these narratives are often orchestrated by media companies and PR managers to generate attention. Even after marriage, some celebrities continue to discuss past relationships on public platforms, which can blur the lines between genuine personal disclosures and PR manipulation. In some cases, reputable sources report these fabrications as fact, making it difficult to distinguish between truth and PR strategy.

What further complicates the issue is the way Wikipedia's principle of verifiability (WP:V) is sometimes exploited by PR managers. Once these stories are published in otherwise reliable sources, they are often cited in BLP articles, lending them an air of legitimacy. Journalists and other media outlets sometimes reference Wikipedia content, creating a circular reinforcement of potentially misleading information. Wikipedia should not amplify content that is based more on PR-driven sensationalism than on factual, career-related information.

While WP:BLP provides general guidance on the removal of certain information, it does not fully address the cultural nuances of the Indian entertainment industry or the PR-driven narratives that often lead to misrepresentation. In Western societies, dating is publicly accepted and often seen as akin to marriage without formal commitment. In India, however, dating tends to be private, usually involving minimal interaction and often arranged by families to assess compatibility. These differences are frequently misrepresented in Wikipedia articles, where PR-driven narratives based on Western norms distort the personal image of Indian celebrities.

PR management often sensationalises relationships, including broken engagements, as extensions of dating, strategically manipulating a celebrity's image for public attention. While these narratives may occasionally influence public interest, they rarely contribute to the individual's professional notability. This becomes problematic when exaggerated or fabricated stories are published by reliable sources and included in BLP articles. These narratives, especially concerning female celebrities, result in a disproportionate focus on their personal lives rather than their professional achievements. Broken engagements, in particular, can carry significant social stigma in India, yet they are often portrayed in ways that sensationalise the personal experiences of individuals, further distorting their public image.

WP:BLPPRIVACY does not fully address these cultural nuances or the impact of PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context. For example, live-in relationships are widely accepted in the West but remain controversial in India, often used to sensationalise a celebrity’s image. My proposal discourages the inclusion of such PR-manipulated personal details, ensuring that articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force remain professional, culturally accurate, and gender-neutral, focusing on the subject's contributions rather than on sensationalised personal matters. It is important to emphasise that excluding these details does not limit a celebrity’s autonomy, but ensures that Wikipedia maintains its role as a reliable and neutral source.

To address these concerns, I propose the following:

1. Exclusion of dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements: These personal aspects should not be included in BLP articles, as they do not typically contribute to the individual's notability in their professional domain. While there may be public interest in these stories, Wikipedia should avoid becoming a platform for amplifying tabloid-like content.
2. Focus on professional achievements: Articles should primarily highlight the subject's contributions to the cinema or television industry, ensuring that their professional work takes precedence over personal life details. The integrity of Wikipedia’s content should be safeguarded against PR-driven manipulation.
3. Gender-neutral approach: BLP articles should ensure balanced representation, avoiding poetic or narrative embellishment in one article while reducing the significance of similar content in another. The sensationalisation of personal lives, particularly of female celebrities, should not overshadow their professional accomplishments.

I believe these changes will help maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and ensure a fair and accurate portrayal of celebrities, especially in the context of articles under the Indian Cinema Task Force.

I welcome any feedback or further discussion on this proposal.

Note-- This proposal was first raised in the Indian Cinema Task Force (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Film%2FIndian_cinema_task_force#Proposal%3A_Exclusion_of_Dating%2C_Live-In_Relationships%2C_and_Broken_Engagements_from_BLP_Articles_under_Indian_Cinema_Task_Force), where participants suggested that it be posted here for consideration.
W170924 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know why the editors at the Indian Cinema Taskforce sent you here – I would have thought that it's up to them to decide what their manual of style says. I'm not sure how much editors here know about the Indian entertainment industry specifically. In general, I would not be unhappy if Wikipedia only covered celebrities' dating lives if they have been discussed in high-quality reliable source: if only tabloids and gossip magazines discuss something, we probably shouldn't consider it encyclopedic. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto-public: I acknowledge that this proposal might have been better addressed within the Indian Cinema Task Force, but I was directed here by other editors. I do not have insight into that decision or any existing rules governing it. My main concern is that PR-driven stories, even from reliable sources, blur the line between encyclopedic content and sensationalism, resulting in tabloid-like material in Indian BLP articles. Correcting these articles requires extensive and tiresome case-by-case discussions, which could be avoided through this proposal, preventing similar narratives in the future.W170924 (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Paid news in India is a greatly complicating factor here. Cullen328 (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

May also touch on WP:RS issues then? —DIYeditor (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

This does not seem unreasonable on the face of it but is rather task-force specific. Are you asking for a formal survey to take place here in WP:RFC style to decide the matter?

There are specific provisions in various Wikipedia:MOS namespace manuals of style (e.g. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles), and I don't see why there couldn't be something similar under BLP, although I am not sure there is precedent for that. If being added to a subpage of WP:BLP it would probably need to be discussed on Wikipedia talk:BLP or at least clearly notified there if this is to become an RFC. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@DIYeditor:Thank you for your response. The issue is indeed prominent and visible in celebrity BLP articles, especially those covered by the Indian Cinema Task Force (ICTF). It is less common in other BLPs related to Indian personalities, as such personal events tend to remain private, with public attention often focused only after formal engagements. Considering this, I believe it would be more appropriate to incorporate this guideline specifically into the ICTF’s Manual of Style, with a cross-reference in the broader Wikipedia:Manual of Style/India-related articles. Given the limited scope of the change, I don't think it warrants creating a separate page under WP:BLP. As for the process, I’m not entirely sure how to move this forward correctly. When I raised the issue at ICTF, editors directed me here. Any guidance on next steps or suggestions for relevant region-specific editors to reach out to would be greatly appreciated.W170924 (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't WP:BLPPUBLIC apply in a lot of instances? Where it does then projects can't arrive and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that is at odds with core Wikipedia WP:PAG. TarnishedPath^talk 01:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@TarnishedPath: Thank you for pointing out WP:BLPPUBLIC. However, the situations I’ve described don’t fall under the threshold of allegations covered by this policy. My concern isn’t about major scandals or significant allegations, but rather the glorification of private events—such as dating, live-in relationships, and broken engagements—that are frequently used by PR teams to generate public attention.
Even though these stories may be reported in reliable sources, the issue is not just about verifiability but about maintaining WP:UNDUE neutrality and relevance. These personal details often add little to the subject's notability and create an imbalance, where PR-driven content overshadows professional achievements.
In many instances, policies like WP:FRUIT and WP:SOAP are not adequately considered, resulting in a narrative style that feels more tabloid-like than encyclopedic, even when coming from otherwise reliable sources. Wikipedia’s role is to provide neutral, fact-based content, and my proposal is aimed at preventing unnecessary PR-influenced material from distorting biographies.W170924 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Firstly WP:FRUIT is neither policy nor guidance. It's an essay. Secondly, if there are a bunch of reliable sources reporting something it is not WP:SOAP not WP:UNDUE to reflect those sources. You can always make arguments about how much prose should be devoted to covering the reliable sources but that's an entirely different question. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Are we suggesting that gossip from reliable sources is acceptable simply because it’s published? Could this be viewed as a case of WP:SOAP and WP:NOTSCANDAL? While I understand that WP:FRUIT is an essay, does this imply that PR-driven stories automatically qualify as encyclopedic content? Should we reflect on whether tabloid-style language aligns with the principles of WP:UNDUE?W170924 (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I can't say how strongly I oppose your 1st proposal as a broad policy. This can be done on a case by case basis, and an umbrella policy would only stifle the ability to address each individuals article. As for the 2nd proposal, this should already be the case most of the time if the person is note worthy for their achievements. However, a persons relationships may be notable, and broadly excluding them to focus only on professional achievements seems like it could easily be abused to make a page promotional. Many celebrities have very blurred lines between their professional and personal relationships, even striving to create Parasocial interaction. Look at the page Public image of Taylor Swift, and you'll see wide coverage of her romantic affairs as part of what makes her a notable person. When it comes to humans, we should take a gender-neutral approach. That said, it is odd that you want this policy applied to the personal lives "particularly of female celebrities."

What makes a person interesting or noteworthy is hard to pin down, and what someone might consider important others may find irrelevant. Consider an actor trying to portray a celebrity from 50 years ago. Their professional achievements may help them broadly understand the persons career, but it gives them little insight into what the person was thinking or feeling during those achievements. If a person is a scholar of pop culture (they exist I assure you), then the stuff you're trying to remove may be the entire focus of their research. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 04:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. While I acknowledge that personal relationships can contribute to public figures' notability, I remain sceptical due to the widespread use of “PR relationships” in the media. My focus here is specifically on the Indian cinema industry, where PR manipulation and sensationalism surrounding personal lives often overshadow professional achievements. Regarding female celebrities, my intention was to highlight that tabloid-style language seems more common in their articles than in those about men. However, my aim is not to prioritise one over the other, but to ensure that all Indian BLP articles are free from sensationalism. I mentioned Indian cinema because this issue is particularly pronounced there, and the ICTF is an active community where these changes could effectively be initiated. This proposal is meant to prevent Wikipedia from becoming a platform for PR-driven narratives, particularly in the Indian context.W170924 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Gebru

Could someone have a look at Samuel Gebru? I've reverted the recent addition of some unsourced allegations against him here, but the current version of the article has a statement to the same effect on the Political Involvement section, another passing comment in the EGI section and something about his "alleged" school. Looks like this goes back a year or more, and I'm not confident about resolving it myself. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is he notable enough for a wikipedia bio at this point? Not sure its worth resolving if we can't establish notability. If there is not enough sourcing about him, we should consider WP:AFD Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, can't use blogs as refs, added some refs for his high school. If the IP editors add it back, just revert it. Looking at some of the content they have added, it's clear it is vandalism and BLPVIO. An admin might want to take a look at those diffs, see if it should be rev-del. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Page protection would probably help, the BLPVIO vandalism dates back to 2021. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for resolving that. I'll keep an eye on it and request page protection if further vandalism happens. Re notability, I've added some additional coverage. I'm leaning non-notable despite this, but will leave it for a while and see if anyone responds to the notability tag. Thanks again, Tacyarg (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No comment on notability but I've fixed a bunch of errors where editors haven't even spelt the guy's name correctly. Daveosaurus (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Eric Stoltz § Wife and children

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eric Stoltz § Wife and children. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

For reference, an IP account claiming to be Eric Stoltz posted at WP:HD#Eric Stoltz Page stating that they've been trying to remove certain personal information from Eric Stoltz but kept getting reverted. Another account Judyblueyes also seems to be involved in trying to remove the information going all the way back to December 2006. Perhaps some more eyes on this would hep sort it out. FWIW, I didn't dig through the entire page history of the article to see how many times this content has been added, removed and then re-added, but the content I hid wasn't supported by any citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Gabriel Wainer

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gabriel_Wainer&oldid=1218964877 The original page was vandalized and it includes insulting and libelous items.

I would appreciate any help to have them as they were in April 2024. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabriel.A.Wainer (talk • contribs) 04:05, 4 Oct 2024 (UTC)

While the IP's edit summaries cause me concerns about whether they are editing in good faith, they do have a point about deleting a large chunk of the article, saying his works "don't meet the threshold of merit to be included on a wikipedia page. The benchmark he created and his most influential research has less than 10 citations."[2] Now, the unsourced addition from the IP has already been removed. —C.Fred (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

No, they were not editing in good faith, that edit summary pales in comparison to the BLPVIO content they added. I left a warning on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

@C.Fred, the 15:00, 3 October 2024‎ edit was revdeleted, but the edit summary is still there and strikes me as a BLPVIO. Would you take a look? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• I suppose this is a warning for people vain enough to create autobiographies of themselves that people can vandalise your articles with defamatory information, though this partially the WMF's fault for allowing IP editing of BLPS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

John Rustad

I am currently reverting edits made by User:Factsoverfiction118 repeatedly because they spread a false claim about a political candidate in a current election. This account is likely a sock puppet of User:PoliticalPoint, who was unable to reach a consensus about editing the article lead numerous time in recent days.

The false claim is that Rustad said there was a conspiracy to "depopulate" the earth, when that claim was said by one of his political party's candidates, Chris Sankey. Please help. Deathying (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Eliana Rubashkyn

We have some issues here with an IP editor adding undue content to the first sentence and using abusive edit summaries. AusLondonder (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The legal case is already mentioned in the article but this IP just won't stop edit-warring over this and using edit summaries directed at the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFPP might be the right place to take this. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I'm just not sure about repeatedly reverting myself, but the current version of the article says "...is a Colombian pharmacist and chemist, known for being a convicted criminal". The section "Activism" was also changed to "Legal issues". AusLondonder (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I requested WP:SILVER and reverted back to the last stable version. If the IP reverts back, then I suggest WP:AN3 or seek out an admin since it will probably get a faster response than here at BLPN. You might also want to ask WP:OVERSIGHT to look at the diffs and see if they need to be WP:REVDEL. I wouldn't engage with the IP any more on their user talk page except to perhaps add an AN3 notification if you go there. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, was super tired and couldn't deal with it 😅 AusLondonder (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Gukesh Dommaraju

Persistent unsourced and poorly sourced edits dating back to 16 December 2023 by user @Voglam who claims that chess Grandmaster Gukesh is of Telugu (Indian Language) origin, while being born in Tamil Nadu.

Notably, this is right before the subject of the article had qualified for the prestigious Candidates tournament. Subsequently, Indian websites have written articles using information from the wiki page, and those articles have been retroactively added as sources by the same user. Just checking in to understand if these sources and edits can be considered reliable. Talk page. Padfather (talk) 15:00, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Persistent removal of sourced material that Gukesh Dommaraju is Telugu by seemingly sockpuppet account Padfather. Please see my replies at Talk:Gukesh Dommaraju#Gukesh's Origins Voglam (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Neco Williams, footballer,

This entry appears to have been sabotaged with nonsense lines inserted. 80.169.150.253 (talk) 16:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted - in future, you can use WP:AIV. GiantSnowman 16:47, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Dick Davis (Translator)

Not mentioned in the article is his collected poems volume entitled Love in Another Language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.113.11 (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Added to "Published works". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Jacob Appelbaum

Hagiographer on aisle three. The account is JunkmailU, which says it is a reincarnation of an account called BlueSapphires. My particular concern was some of the accounts first edits sought to paint Appelbaum's accusers as liars, though (for now at least) it has appeared to back off from that effort. This is a request for more eyes on the article.Dan Murphy (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Murphy's allegations are untrue. I never called anyone a liar!

What i wrote was that: I watched the documentary JA (which is on AppleTV) and I wrote what the documentary detailed: one of the guys who accused JA was himself later accused by the two women who started the board. The guy doesn't like JA, but he wound-up questioning the situation. That was part of the documentary. If you watch the documentary on Apple TV, you can see what what I said was the truth. Whether that's the correct way to write about it on Wikipedia may be another question.

Murphy claimed that I'd made a BLP violation against the women. That's false. I didn't draw any conclusions. I wrote about the documentary's content. In any event, I dialed-it-down. Murphy is running around "waving his red hankie", with dramatic flair.

My account is indeed BlueSapphires and I can't log-in, and I'm not getting a password reset, so I made a 2nd temp account, which I declared. He turned that into a crime too.

It seems like he is not neutral, i.e. Murphy distorted the facts, all-around, in a manner which was neither kind, nor accurate.

Thanks for your understanding. Cheers. JunkmailU (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that article is now a mess. Looks like someone is trying to WP:RGW after watching a documentary. Here is what the lead used to look like; now it has eight paragraphs. And I don't understand this edit either - Nowhere else are the doctoral thesis advisors of any Phd-holder listed on their Bio. - I don't know what is meant by "nowhere else", but it is literally an infobox parameter that is widely used in BLPs, see for example: Lisa Feldman Barrett, Donald J. Harris, David Deutsch and Lex Fridman, just to name a few. The documentary is probably/maybe due for inclusion, but the entire article shouldn't be re-written in favor of the docs narrative. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You are right in that other people who have Phds listed show their doctoral advisors. This seemed OTT in this case, given that the advisor names were listed before his work was even defined (if you look at the history). Moreover, thesis advisors only appear to be listed on topics or personalities which are REALLY famous, such as : The father of the current Vice President (Donald Harris), the pioneer of Quantum computer (Deutch). I could be wrong, but listing advisors didn't seem appropriate. Perhaps I was wrong.

The introduction was a total mess before, outright libelling someone with rape for whom formal charges were never raised.

But I guess Murphy did a canvassing,and the article is going to be written using the word rape. Chapeau. JunkmailU (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

JunkmailU, here you clearly added the claim [3] "The film found that many of the persons who made the rape allegations had falsely accused others". The claim does not appear anywhere in the only source you provided and I fairly doubt any reliable secondary source will present the film as having findings in that way. So this is a clear BLP violation. Please don't do that again or you can expect at minimum a BLP topic ban. BTW, your own description of what you saw in the documentary above doesn't even support the content you added, not that adding content directly from the documentary was acceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi there. In fact the documentary found that to be the case. So when you say *The claim does not appear anywhere in the only source you provided". YES. It does. In fact, one of the guys who supported that platform, and made allegations against JA, got accused of rape by one-of the two women, she did it online (according to him, in the documentary) - he explains that he was beaten-up by some person-or-persons who was/were holding a phone with he allegation on-it saying "you know why I'm hitting you". It was quite something. Go check it out for yourself.

Returning to the point of my original-sin (!!!) ... in fact, if you look above, I wrote: "If you watch the documentary on Apple TV, you can see what what I said was the truth. Whether that's the correct way to write about it on Wikipedia may be another question."

This feels like being cross-examined. Frankly. Spanish-inquisition-ish. JunkmailU (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

<It's like you want to parse my thought-crime. JunkmailU (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a personal stake in this point, and I changed it. But I made it in good faith to start-with.

Documentaries are not reliable sources. I know their supposed to be fact-based, but they have no editorial oversight and the "facts" are usually stitched together to fit some narrative in order to make it more interesting than actual journalism. A good example is White Wilderness (film) by Walt Disney. It was supposed to be a documentary about animals in the far north where he shows how lemmings commit mass suicide, but it was a complete hoax. They took thousands of shots of lemmings and stitched them all together into this completely fake narrative, thus creating a myth that still persists today. Now I'm not saying all documentaries are that bad (some, like Ken Burns, are rather good) but it's the reason we can't consider them reliable sources. We can't use Ken Burns for history articles anymore than we can use Forensic Files for crime articles.

The factual parts of most documentaries tend to come from reliable sources. For example, Forensic Files gets much of their info from newspapers, so it's best to find those sources and use them instead. Zaereth (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Zareth. Sage advice, well received. JunkmailU (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I actually hadn't given it enough thought when I made that edit, so I revised. JunkmailU (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Seong-Jin Cho

Article: Seong-Jin Cho As of four months ago, June 2024, this article was up to standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Seong-Jin_Cho&oldid=1229219333 However, this article now consists almost entirely of uncited information, non-neutral language, with an obvious Korean nationalist bias inserted (e.g. repeated removal of the 'Hanja'/Chinese version of the subject's name, which is standard for those of Korean descent).

Most of these edits are due entirely to months of edits from one person: Floresebius, who is now also attempting to do the same to Yunchan Lim, which I've manually reverted twice after reinsertion by this user. However, no one else is actively maintaining the Seong-Jin Cho article. I believe the page should be reverted to the above diff and the page or user locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.118 (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Same is now ongoing on Yunchan Lim 130.132.173.118 (talk) 11:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what you're calling a "Korean nationalist bias". I haven't looked at the Yunchan article, but from digging into the Seong-Jin article I tend to agree. It reads like an autobiography. I didn't check all the sources, but sampled quite a few. There are some good ones mixed in, but we also have things like concert promos and youtube in there quite a bit. Most of the sources are short and tend to only support the sentence they follow, not the entire paragraph or section above them, so there is a lot of information there that could only have come directly from the subject or someone very close to the subject, so it looks like a case of COI editing to me.

Not to be harsh, but much of it is just too detailed and difficult to read. I mean, the English is very good, but there are many entire paragraphs that consist of a single sentence, simply listing every venue he played at or person he's performed with, or things like that. That makes it difficult to read because of the sheer monotony and how boring it is. It's hard for the reader to absorb and retain info that way, and overshadows the forest with all the trees. I definitely agree it needs to be whittled down a lot.

However, there may be some good info added in there as well, so rather than simply reverting to an earlier stage, perhaps it would be better to go through all the sources, keep what we can and toss out the rest. Unfortunately, this really requires someone who can read Korean fluently to do it right. Zaereth (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

An article, vandalism persists (... User:AntiDionysius; User:Daniel Case)

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

---

Please, someone revert to Special:Diff/1249994783. --109.163.168.198 (talk); 04:41, 10. October 2024. (UTC)

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

Salim Yusuf

An IP user is insisting that a section noting that some of Salim Yusuf's views regarding salt intake and saturated fat is opposed to the mainstream medical consensus is libellous and should be removed. I personally don't see how it is libellous, given the reliable nature of the sources cited, but I thought it would be worthwhile getting input here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any case for libel there, as long as we're faithfully representing what the sources say (and providing they're reliable sources, which at first glance it looks like they are). His medical views are most certainly important to a bio about him, just as a politician's political views are to them.

I really don't know why reporting his views would be an issue at all, but I ask myself this a lot for anyone who comes here worried about being labeled fringe. All the really great scientists of today were the fringe scientists of their time. Lavoisier had his life threatened for speaking out against the phlogiston theory. Wegener was a laughing stock when he proposed plate tectonics. Young had the crap beat out of him for calling light a wave. Those that have their fringe theories immediately accepted, like Einstein, are extremely rare. If history says anything, if you're not being called fringe then you're probably just going to be forgotten.

I don't disagree with his views myself, but then again I tend to eat a lot of salty, fatty foods, as did my dad and most of my ancestors with no ill effect. (Salt was the only way to preserve meat.) Ask any good doctor why and they'll tell you, "We really don't know." If these are the subject's views then it seems to me he should want to stand behind them. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's definitely the question about how Yusuf's views should be the framed, but the fact that his views have brought him into disputes with other doctors and several medical organisations seems relevant and due to include. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Before 2016, Yusuf used to do a lot of valid epidemiology research but he joined the cholesterol denialist camp in 2017 and allied himself with Nina Teicholz, authoring a paper that was funded by her Nutrition Coalition, a group known for promoting all sorts of pseudoscience. These-days much of his content is promoted by fringe figures from the low-carb camp and not on mainstream websites. Yusuf is in conspiracy theory terrority when he claims that Ancel Keys fudged his data [4]. That is a typical low-carb diet talking point that has been discredited.

Yusuf was the co-author of the 2017 PURE study (Prospective Urban Rural Epidemiology) [5]. This is a flawed study that is widely quoted by carnivore diet proponents and those in the low-carb community to justify their belief that saturated fat is "good" in unlimited amounts and "all" carbohydrates are bad. As seen here the study had many methodological problems such as grouping all carbohydrates together [6], [7]. One study is not going to alter consensus dietary recommendations based on decades of research. As we can see on this link [8], Yusuf claims the American Heart Association's dietary recommendations are all wrong. He is arguing from an extreme position. I am not convinced we should remove sources from the article just because some of his followers may be upset with it. The article can be updated and improved, it is probably worth mentioning his involvement with the PURE study. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Given that the IP is from Hamilton, Ontario, Canada where Yusuf works, I suspect that the IP is someone closely associated with Yusuf, rather than just a fan. The article needs to balance the fact that Salim Yusuf is a distinguished and high-profile cardiologist with his promotion of controversial and widely disputed claims regarding sodium and saturated fat intake. I think the current version does this OK. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree, his views are not primary to his notability, so it would be undue to give it anymore weight. Besides, if someone is interested in "debunking" his views, opinions are not facts and thus can't be debunked. We can and should show that others disagree with those views as a matter of NPOV, but for purposes of debunking that often tends to have the opposite effect intended. People are far more likely to believe something just because someone tells them not to. For example, I don't trust the medical industry as far as I could throw it because, as I see it, they're puppets of big pharma and for them it's all about the money. People are far too likely to cite some random study or two as fact, but to be scientifically sound those studies need to be repeatable many times over, and they rarely are. One week honey is a magic cure-all, the next it's bee stings, then fish oil, then acacia berries, etc.

Nutritional advice like the food pyramid comes from the FDA whose primary goal is to help the farmers sell their products, not protect the health of the public, so I don't put much stock in them either. I just eat the way I was raised and don't worry about it. The point is, the weight of information is usually far more significant than the info itself, and giving stuff like this more weight than it deserves will often have the exact opposite results that were intended, whereas less weight would be more effective towards that goal. I agree it's probably fine as is.

I also had a feeling the IP was somehow connected with the subject, hence my previous comments about fringe scientists were directed specifically at them. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to state those views publicly then by god you should own them. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

libelous sounds vaguely like a legal threat… if any legal threats are bandied about those are grounds for admin actions Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for people to use the word libelous, but that in itself doesn't constitute a legal threat. It's simply a comment on the info itself, as perceived by the IP editor, and if any info is found to be libelous it should be removed immediately per BLP policy. But I don't see that as being the case here. Just a misunderstanding of the law. Zaereth (talk) 01:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Roberto Rosario

Roberto Rosario (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I came across the article of Roberto Rosario by chance; to me it looks like it has very obviously been edited to put the subject in a more favourable light. All of the stated facts are positive, the 'controversies' section only mentions a controversy made by other companies that he disclosed/solved, and the provided references are questionable at best - three sources are linked that are purportedly meant to illustrate that 'PyCon Cuba [is] a joke', but they link to some April's fools joks post from 2018 and 2 reactions to it.

Finally, a post by him regarding his current status is quoted, but the 'many situations' (as quoted) that led to it it are not listed, referred to, or otherwise acknowledged at all. From doing a bit of google research it seems that the actual reasons where quite controversial, which makes it all the more prudent to include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.85.189.90 (talk) 13:19, 11 october 2024 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any significant edits to the article in the past five years, and the account that created the article has been inactive since 2015, so there is no complaint to be made about recent behavior. If you feel that there are aspects of his biography that need enhancing, you can of course suggest edits or even make them yourself, provided that you have reliable third party sources discussing the matter in ways that do not violate our standards for biographies of living persons. I will note that we prefer to avoid having controversy sections at all. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-public accounts being linked to by IP editor

What I believe to be a non-public Instagram account of a public and notable artist has been linked to multiple times by an IP editor. I'm unsure if this falls under the pervue of BLPN but the content has been removed and the user warned for vandalism as the information was added uncited and inserted in the lede and various locations within the article that aren't external links. This account has done this multiple times to this page. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The article has been page protected by Drmies for a month, so that should help. And hopefully, the IP editor will heed the warnings on their talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs (Main Page)

Could I get someone familiar with the policy to double-check content before it hits the main page. Josh Hawley's book Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs has been near universally-panned by critics who mock Hawley for initially supporting the January 6th mob before "running for his life" like a "bitch", ask "Is Josh Hawley All Right?", and describe the book as a "disaster". Two hook facts are approved for Wikipedia:Did You Know, both are somewhat negative but I think that is likely necessary to meet WP:NPOV. Any approved hook fact will not run until after the 2024 United States Senate election in Missouri is over.

Comments welcome at: Template:Did you know nominations/Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

List of antisemitic incidents in the United States

Pinging @Steven1991 and @Butterscotch Beluga

Most of this list after 2000 is WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME violations and seems extremely troubling. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, before I delve too far into this, I'd like to clarify if we should simply remove names from incidents that lack convictions, or should we flat-out delete those? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The same issue happened for List of Islamophobic incidents. I would appreciate if we can address it as well? Steven1991 (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

That article is a mess as well. Arguably, not sure why we have an article like that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider taking both articles to WP:AFD then due to WP:NOTDB, as you suggested on talk? Or should we try to narrow their coverage first before considering deletion? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:47, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

But that is what the article was originally approved for? I can see that entries started in 2020 and a number of cases were well-documented, well-sourced and the ones widely discussed in Western media, e.g. Charlottesville ramming, Pittsburgh synagogue shooting. Steven1991 (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLPCRIME. If they weren't convicted of a crime, we shouldn't list it. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Great, I had a look at List of Islamophobic incidents and it appears to have similar problems. Should we address them as well? Steven1991 (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I read your first response already. I haven't looked there yet, but let's focus on managing one topic at a time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

For the betterment of Wikipedia, it’d be good to address them all. Steven1991 (talk) 15:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I know & we should clean that article up as well, I'm just saying that it'd more efficient if we don't split our focus. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 15:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The entries are as carefully worded as possible to indicate their “suspected” nature, mainly quoted directly from the news articles cited to provide objective descriptions of the hate crimes that happened. Would be there suggestions on how they can be reworded to minimise any impression of presumption of guilt? Steven1991 (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Taking a look at the list suggests there are a lot of incidents that fall under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLPCRIME. Additionally, if there isn't an article covering the incident it really shouldn't be listed, per WP:DUE. The WP:ONUS is on editors to find consensus for inclusion, and I'd argue about 90% of that list should be deleted per above policies. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Mark Carney

Mark Carney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some extra eyes on this would be nice. Stickhandler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added a "controversy" section to the article (after being reverted) that is based on a single sentence from a single source, which doesn't even focus on that supposed "controversy". This is entirely undue weight, and even though I feel justified to remove it again per WP:BLP policies, I'd be more comfortable if someone else did. Stickhandler refused an offer to self-revert. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

They are now repeatedly reverting my changes to the article, ignoring WP:ONUS in the process. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Robert Rosen (writer)

This is false and possibly libelous: "In 1981 Rosen stole copies of John Lennon's diaries from Frederic Seaman, Lennon's personal assistant, and tried to sell them to Jann Wenner, editor of Rolling Stone Magazine." The footnote for this information, "Double Theft-Rosen Testifies" is a dead link. 2603:7000:3802:27B4:ECF7:7654:9C02:DACF (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)