Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Murray Hill (performer)

    [edit]

    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)

    Die Antwoord

    [edit]

    Die Antwoord is a South African rap group. On the band article, and also on the articles of its two main members, Watkin Tudor Jones and Yolandi Visser, are some claims about criminal allegations various people have made against them. As far as I can see, these allegations have never been tested in court. What is our stance on this sort of thing? John (talk) 14:31, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Allegations usually require significant reliable coverage to be considered WP:DUE for a BLP, such as major investigations, criminal charges, or consequences. Coverage about these allegations are definitely WP:UNDUE for the groups page unless the impact of the allegations caused problems for the group such as a breakup, cancelled tours, etc. and would require their own independent reliable secondary sources to link such outcomes. After looking at some of these sources and claims, I believe they are unlikely to meet the WP:EXTRAORDINARY threshold for inclusion per WP:BLPCRIME. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've posted at the three article talk pages. I agree with you. Unless a consensus is shown that these items are WP:DUE there I will remove them per WP:BLP. John (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on a quick internet search, I found many reliable news sources that have covered these allegations. I have restored the content to Tutor Jones's page and Visser's page and added additional citations. I also moved the content from the "controversy" sections into their personal life sections. The allegations may also be relevant to the band's page given that many articles appear to discuss these numerous allegations when discussing the band, and the band even released a documentary dealing with the allegations called "Zef: The Story of DIE ANTWOORD" [1], but someone else can restore that content if they feel it would be appropriate there. – notwally (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed again since there didn't seem to be a consensus, and the material was added back with the only changes being more sources being added. This seems to be a BLPGOSSIP issue since all of the sources regarding their adopted son added back point to the News24 article itself (including the News24 articles themselves which wouldn't be independent), or the YouTube documentary which has since been removed.
    From what I recall of past discussions involving an unreliable source (interview by Ben Jay Crossman, former filmmaker of the group who interviewed the foster son) being the source of controversial claims, we usually don't include. A recent example that comes to mind is a youtube "documentary" that stated a rapper was a serial killer.
    Regarding the other 3 allegations - one is sourced back to a podcast interview (Danny Brown), one is sourced back to the lyrics of a diss track (Zheani), and the other seems like it sources back to a Sydney Morning Herald article involving Zheani if I'm not mistaken. The Sydney Morning Herald article seems to be an in depth look at the allegations but I would think we would need more in depth coverage from reliable sources that don't explicitly point back to "In the diss track, ..."
    Awshort (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Notwally: Please do not restore without consensus. The above editors have also had issues with it other than the sourcing issue. Thank you.
    Awshort (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awshort, I have added numerous sources since those earlier comments. I'm not sure how this falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP when the allegations have been covered by sources such Le Monde [2], News24 [3], The South African [4], and NME [5]? There are other sources as well (e.g., Mixmag, Far Out) if you search online. Are you claiming that these are all not reliable sources? Otherwise, as WP:PUBLICFIGURE states: "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." The fact that we are naming this son in the articles while refusing to include his widely published allegations of abuse seems particularly wrong to me.
    • The sexual assault allegations against Watkin Tudor Jones have similarly been published in numerous reliable sources. Just because they reference a recording that one of the alleged victims made about it does not somehow make their reporting not valid, it just simply means they find that aspect of it notable or relevant. The articles you removed [6] are not simply churching out the same content about one incident. It is a series of articles over multiple years documenting allegations of sexual assault by three individuals in separate incidents, with later reporting referencing the earlier allegations as well. – notwally (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It would help to identify the specific content and references in a manner where they can be easily reviewed.

    From what I can see, in the case of Tokie's accusations, all five references were published in April or May 2022, all based almost entirely on the same video interview. That suggests a NOTNEWS situation. --Hipal (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In additon to the articles from my comment above, there are also articles from June 2022: Fader Yahoo (from Consequence) AllHipHop Crack. And from July: Mixmag. The Le Monde article was updated in August 25, 2022. There is also an article from April 2024 in Kronen Zeitung [7], as well as a MSN article [8] also from April 2024. Another MSN article from March 2024 also mentions the criminal investigations into the abuse and assault allegations [9]. Most of these articles are documenting the series of abuse or assault allegations against the band members. This is not breaking news or routine coverage, as discussed by WP:NOTNEWS. It is one of the most frequently discussed aspects of the band in almost all recent coverage that I can find since the allegations were made. Part of the issue is that this was not some huge band, and after the multiple allegations of assault and abuse, they stopped receiving most press coverage. But even still, there are numerous article from reliable sources over a series of years documenting these allegations. – notwally (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is also a diff of the removed content [10]. – notwally (talk) 20:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot access the Kronen Zeitung ref.
    The two MSN refs focus on the documentary about Die Antwoord, both reading like churnalism, the second outright promoting the documentary. They are very poor sources that I don't think should be used to give any weight to the matter. --Hipal (talk) 21:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both the MSN articles are actually from The South African. – notwally (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident

    [edit]

    I'm trying to find out if there is a BLP issue in including the name of the murdered victim in the article. There are many sources for this. At Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident VSankeerthSai1609 wrote "Hello, I will be removing the victim's name in the Wikipedia page of the article. This is due to allegations and complains raised for alleged non-compliance of Indian laws specifically under my name and also my own consicence. I am a proud Indian national who will not and cannot act against my law. The Supreme court today (9 september) officially asked all private and public social media handles to delete the pictures and names of the victim. While they had been used by many prestigious news and media outlets who have thus deleted it. I have repeatedly said and maintained that the edit pertaining to the name has been edited multiple times after me and each time I have edited the article, I have not touched the name section. As an Indian National and a youth, I don't intend to take such legal and moral risks. If anyone disagrees, please do not revert my edit, but instead opt to other means. I hope the Wiki community will understand. VSankeerthSai1609 (talk) 7:48 am, Today (UTC+1)" and removed the name. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This isn't a new issue, it's come up a lot. When I first became aware of it, I was surprised we were naming the victim, but when I looked at the discussion it was claimed the family had asked for her to be named so I decided to let it be. (It was also claimed it was in a lot of sources, and was widely featured in rallies etc.) However looking at one of the discussions on this, Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident/Archive 1#Discussion on Removing Victim's Name, the family's stance seems to have been disputed. IMO it would help a great deal if this we can get a clear answer on whether the family appears to want her name out there or they don't seem to care either way, or they'd prefer that it's private. This seems much more important IMO that what Indian law requires considering the name seems to be in a lot of extant sources. Nil Einne (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, IMO if we keep the name, it might be worth re-instating the warning box [11]. I can see merit in discussing including the name based on various policies and guidelines, but I'm unconvinced of any merit of all the threads demanding we remove the name due to Indian law. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne yes, if we keep the name we need that. Not sure how to know the family's current feelings. Do these help;?[12][13] Doug Weller talk 14:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one point- family does not decide on whether a victim shall be protected by law (before or after) death or not. The law takes over the matter if there is one. The provision "Section 71 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita" forbids publishing of names of victims of sexual assault whether Alleged or Proven. The law is crystal clear. I am yet to bring myself to accept how inclusion of name of victim of sexual assault will be of value for Wikipedia and its consumption. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 03:13, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be noted that the removing poster was doing so legally cover his posterior, given his being named in (Redacted); hopefully, his removal will cover him there, and should be separate from consideration of whether we include the name under policy (on which I have no stance at this time.) BTW, the document also states that Wikipedia is a CIA front organization, although I suspect said document may not be an RS for documenting that fact. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @NatGertler Link goes to a downloaded email, can't see it. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the link on the article talk page and also here. IMO the email is clearly outing. Doug, look at number 3. Number 2 also raises BLP concerns IMO, I originally thought that the person writing the email was supporting the claim made. Frankly reading it again, I'm really unsure whether they are or not, but ultimately it doesn't matter. We shouldn't be linking to crazy conspiracy theories which name living individuals except when we need to consider including content on these conspiracy theories. (To be clear, I'm mostly concerned about the other likely low profile people, not the high profile person named there.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually it seems all the details there were just taken from the editor's user page so there's probably no outing. However given the BLP concerns with number 2, I still see no merit to keeping the link to that email. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've opened a RfC. Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder_incident#RfC:_Name_of_victim The page is semi-protected to hopefully this means that the levels of disruption won't be gigantic. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to bring up a similar concern in relation to the 2019 Hyderabad gang rape and murder case, where Indian law (Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 71 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) explicitly forbids disclosing the name of victims of sexual assault, whether the case is alleged or proven. This legal protection is in place to safeguard the privacy and dignity of the victims, and there was also a direct court order asking for the removal of the victim’s personal details from social media and websites.
    While I understand that the family’s stance is important, the law itself is crystal clear on this matter. I believe that in cases like these, it’s not just about legal compliance, but also about ethical responsibility to prevent distress to the victim’s family and respect cultural sensitivities. Given the legal context, should we not adopt a similar stance for the Kolkata case to ensure consistency across articles and respect for Indian law?
    I think it would be useful for us to establish a more general guideline for cases like these, considering both legal obligations and ethical considerations. I.Mahesh (talk) 00:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This should probably be an RfC... but it's also not strictly a BLP issue, given that you'd like to apply it to long-dead victims, so BLPN is probably the wrong place to have that discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to propose archiving this discussion now that the Request for Comment (RfC) has been closed. The consensus reached in that RfC has provided clarity on the handling of sensitive content, particularly in relation to victim names in articles about sexual violence.
    Additionally, I have initiated a new discussion on WikiProject India to further explore and establish guidelines for handling such content consistently across relevant articles. Thank you for the insights shared here, and I believe this will contribute to the ongoing conversation in a more focused manner. I.Mahesh (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marlene Nidecker (Harnois)

    [edit]

    Appears as though Marlène Harnois got married and changed her name as evidenced by her social media profiles

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/marleneharnois/

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIqGUZjOAGflUUCFhG_v38A

    https://x.com/MarleneNidecker

    Whats the's process for changing it on her article? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    All of these sources are self-published, so per WP:SPNC, you need to evaluate how likely reliable sources are to adopt the new name when reporting on her before considering making changes here. Iffy★Chat -- 13:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ok thanks MaskedSinger (talk) 07:43, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Iffy new name now being reflected online
    https://www.peace-sport.org/champions/marlene-nidecker/
    https://www.monaco-tribune.com/en/2024/09/peace-and-sports-story-told-in-a-documentary/ MaskedSinger (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I updated her article. Can you please check I did it correctly and also her Wikidata entry? Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 10:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Al Gore listed as 45th vice president

    [edit]

    In the first paragraph of Al Gore's biography it is listed that he was the 45th vice president despite the fact that he was the 41st alongside Bill Clinton. This is inaccurate information and does not align with the chronological order of previous vice presidencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glarr (talk • contribs) 21:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is better suited for Talk:Al Gore. The reason that is would be (I believe) that he is the 41st president's VP, as certain presidents had more than one either within or when changing terms, displacing his position chronologically. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Please see List of vice presidents of the United States. There have been a few presidents who had multiple vice presidents, so the numbers don't line up. (Also Clinton was the 42nd president.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Clinton was the 41st president. His presidency was the 42nd, because Grover Cleveland had two presidencies, but was still only one president. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an idiosyncratic way of counting. The William J. Clinton Presidential Library thinks he was the 42nd president, as does Wikipedia... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bush Sr. was 41, Clinton 42, Bush Jr. 43, Obama 44, Trump 45, Biden 46, and the next, be it Trump or Harris, will be 47. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gore was the 45th VP. There have been more VP's than presidents. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Glarr, can you tell us which previous vice presidents have a chronological order inconsistent with Gore? I had a look at all our articles on more recent VP and all of them have a chronological order consistent with Gore and our list article, at least in the lead. Likewise I went back all the way to Ford, and all of them had a chronological order consistent with Gore and our list article. Nil Einne (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is less confusing to use the chronological order of Vice Presidents vs. the order of presidencies. Therefore I think 45th is appropriate. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Luis Elizondo

    [edit]

    Luis Elizondo -- can UFO activists be used as a reliable source on UFO-related BLPs?

    [edit]

    New user Very Polite Person insists that they can use a UFO activist, who allegedly saw an UFO in 1979 and then spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs, as a reliable source on a UFO-related BLP. The BLP is Luis Elizondo. They also seem to believe that, because some people agree with Luis Elizondo, his statements have been "confirmed" (and that the UFO activist is a reliable source for that claim). Polygnotus (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Another user MrOllie changed "confirmed" to "supported"[14], got reverted by Very Polite Person[15] and then MrOllie changed it back to "supported".[16] The statements made by Luis Elizondo have not been confirmed. Polygnotus (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps some extracts from his book are useful to determine if Luis is telling the truth:



    And a quote from the article to see how neutral and evenhanded our UFO activist is:


    Polygnotus (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The relevant guidance is probably WP:FRIND. Ufologists are not generally reliable for analysing the WP:FRINGE aspects of UFOs (e.g. the little green men stuff), but may be okay for mundane facts. Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, exactly. So he is not a reliable source for if the claims have been confirmed or supported. If his story is true that is certainly no mundane fact. Polygnotus (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Content requires reliable sources. I'm not quite sure what the source is or who the "UFO activist" is, but a person being quoted in a newspaper would not make what they said reliable, for example. The newspaper, as the reliable source, would need to state the same information as fact for it to be reliable information. If this is just a question of reliability, WP:RSN may be a better forum to discuss the issue. As for the article content, the "and supported by others" language was too vague. I edited the sentence to make it more direct and less open to ambiguous interpretation. [17] – notwally (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well the UFO activist is a guy who writes for an otherwise normal newspaper. But he has a certain bias when it comes to UFOs because he spent most of his life as an activist. Thanks for your edit, that is a big improvement. Polygnotus (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit to Luis Elizondo was not based on the text from the sources and was reverted. The other user has now begun a WP:BLP violating edit war. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:23, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Polygnotus is not the one reverting 3 other people, and neither version of the article is a BLP violation. It's simply a garden variety content dispute. MrOllie (talk) 19:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and people who editwar in garden variety content disputes tend to get blocked, which does not help them achieve their goals. Polygnotus (talk) 19:33, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BLP articles are required to explicitly be WP:NPOV and WP:BLP compliant. The lede that simply quotes one source, while ignoring the other 5-6, is a substantial problem, when the one is the outlier. Based on the plain text reading of WP:BLP, no number of users can supersede it. WP:3RRBLP applies to my revert. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see: Talk:Luis Elizondo#NPOV: Elizondo, Cox, Sarasota Herald-Tribune as WP:RS. I've tried multiple times to get User:Polygnotus to even acknowledge or comment on all that information with no luck. This reporter is a normal veteran senior reporter, who posted to a blog on the Sarasota Herald-Tribune for 2~ years out of a decades-long career at the newspaper. I don't know where User:Polygnotus got ..."spent decades of his life blogging and speaking about UFOs", but that is literally not true based on the available evidence. As far as how we use this source, I have it broken down in that link literally sentence by sentence and invocation by invocation so everything was transparent for everyone. While the subject Luis Elizondo has WP:FRINGE connections, the article is not about their UFO beliefs. It's an article about the WP:BLP subject, and the entirety of the apparent conflict is related to their early life, education, professional military and Pentagon career from 1975 to 2008~ or so. Their UFO related WP:FRINGE aspects don't even begin until 2017. The source in question is used to provide basic biographical and professional data, and is one of six sources that are used to highlight a persistent conflict that is noted across many WP:RS about one single aspect of his resume. That bit of the resume isn't even WP:FRINGE itself! It's basic rote WP:BLP stuff with no WP:FRINGE considerations. User:Polygnotus seems to be saying this reporter is not a valid source to fill in/support non-WP:FRINGE biographical data on a WP:BLP, essentially, because that reporter said they saw a UFO apparently 40 or 50 years, wrote some articles on the topic, a blog for their newspaper for a few years, and that this is apparently a disqualifying consideration and a "conflict of interest". Again, for emphasis, this needs to be read to have context:

    This is a standard run of the mill reporter at a low bias, high credibility newspaper being used by us for standard vanilla WP:RS and WP:BLP coverage, and nothing to even do with WP:FRINGE stuff. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    a standard run of the mill reporter who happens to have allegedly seen a UFO 45 years ago and then spent decades of his life convincing others that that event actually happened and was not rare. Polygnotus (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent ongoing talk page BLP violations on Luis Elizondo

    [edit]

    Note: This section has now been removed repeatedly against my request: it is NOT the same issue whatsoever as the preceding one. It is about the BLP violations by the user who made the preceding section after I told them I would be bringing this BLP violation by them to this noticeboard. It is not part of the above user's issues with a source on that BLP. My post here is expressly and only about editor behavior, and not a content Article dispute related to BLPs.

    ---

    This is about the ongoing seemingly systemic WP:BLP issues on this article's talk page. The user in my view, explained here, committed a WP:BLP violation explicitly calling the BLP subject a liar on their own talk page; further, this talk page/article has a years-long history of small to large WP:BLP problems, that are seemingly unenforced against and overlooked, which is why I posted this. The involved user has tried to frame this as a content dispute, or that they were the originator of this 'against' me. They seemed, based on their almost instant talk page replies to any reactions to this, to be upset at the claim I made of a BLP violation and my desire for BLP to be enforced on the Talk page, like WP:BLP repeatedly says it is supposed to be.

    So--again--this is a 100% seperate issue, topic, and concern from the above Elizondo section. That one is a content dispute; this one is about user behavior and no policing at all of WP:BLP on this ultra-contentious article.

    The Luis Elizondo article is extremely contentious and has seen recurrant article WP:BLP violations over time, that has been reported more than once now to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and is in the archives here. The most recent event, where a litany of users were inserting negative unsourced commentary into Luis Elizondo and even edit warring to keep it in, which is how I became aware of the article and involved, is here from August 26th, not even a month ago:

    On the article itself, it seems like a few of us have managed to source finally 100% of content and there is nothing negative unsourced at all now on this WP:BLP, and it's from casual review of the version history the most WP:BLP and WP:NPOV compliant that Lue Elizondo has ever been. For an idea of how bad it was for WP:BLP in the past, the circa 2021-era versions are a bit of a train wreck.

    However, while the article is at the moment WP:BLP-compliant, the Talk page is a problem. Per our top-level rule at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:

    Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
    All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

    From going through the talk page histories, a number of users, being blunt, "shit talk" the subject openly and without regard for WP:BLP, and no one ever cleans up or challenges it. I noticed one today (and more, but I figured I had to start somewhere), and decided to say something per WP:BLP. On this edit, User:Polygnotus calls the subject a liar twice:

    I replied to notify the user of my concerns on Talk:Luis Elizondo here:

    And on their talk page here, which was deleted:

    User:Polygnotus then came to my talk page here:

    There, Polygnotus refused/disassembled my attempts to sort this out repeatedly, despite my saying I would proceed here to WP:BLPN and dispute resolution if they did not address the WP:BLP concerns, which are equally binding on Talk pages as Articles themselves, per WP:BLP. The user seems at best disinterested in the BLP-related concerns.

    The specific BLP violation remains live here at the moment, and given the problematic history of this article, I wanted to get more eyes and awareness on this:

    In response to all this, the user launched a complaint about BLP-related sourcing on the article here on this noticeboard, further ignoring their WP:BLP violation:

    What can we do to get Talk:Luis Elizondo policed and enforced for WP:BLP concerns, and deal with this specific scenario? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a WP:POVFORK of the section above. See WP:STICK. Stop falsely accusing people. You do not WP:OWN this article. And your WP:POV is clearly not neutral because you think his statements have been confirmed and use a UFO activist as a source for that... Polygnotus (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=1246543430&oldid=1246543088
    Do not remove my section again. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not your section. Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere. Do not falsely accuse me again. And as you are aware I am very interested in your BLP violation; you cannot go to BLPN to ask for support when you added a non-neutral non-reliable source on a BLP and got reverted. Polygnotus (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is NOT the same issue. My post is about YOUR violations of BLP and by others and a request for help on that page. You do not get to define my complaint about you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah for some reason you refuse to focus on the topic at hand. Weird. Meta-conversations are rather boring, don't you think? Polygnotus (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded repeately at length for the non-WP:FRINGE concerns you raised, and you have now at least a dozen (I am not keeping count further) tried to change the subject away from your WP:BLP violation, to the point of trying to remove and obscure my report on you from this page. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The only BLP concern I see expressed in this wall of text is that Polygnotus called the article subject a liar on the talk page. While it may not be the best way to make an argument, I don't think that is a BLP violation. While BLP certainly applies to talk page comments, there is obviously more leeway since editors are allowed to express their own opinions to an extent, which is entirely prohibited from mainspace article content. The article subject appears to be a public figure who has made many controversial claims that have been disputed by others including reliable sources. – notwally (talk) 16:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said: Merging sections about the same topic is the routine here and elsewhere.. I did it once, and you reverted me, and then other people also merged the sections because they are about the same article. I didn't invent the rules here, people just merge sections about the same topic on this and similar pages. If you do not agree with that you can perhaps try to change that? Polygnotus (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I am a pedantic person, and I did not call them a liar. I just pointed out that "It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar" which is the kind of obvious truism moms everywhere and anywhere say to their kids. It is just a fact. Polygnotus (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You wrote It is very hard to figure out when to trust a liar. immediately after writing And luiselizondo-official.com fails WP:ABOUTSELF on points 1, 2, 3 and 4 so I would get rid of that too. I would consider everything he says "controversial" because I would dispute it all.. In no way can that not be reasonably interpreted as a WP:BLP violation. Doing that on the Article would get any of us a firm warning at best. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restrictions are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article. There are also numerous reliable sources that dispute factual statements made by the article subject. Given that is the case, I don't see how the talk page comment could be construed as beyond reasonable. – notwally (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mainspace article content and talk pages are very different. The restriction are simply not the same. Editors are allowed to express their opinions on talk pages to a reasonable extent when discussing how to improve the article.
    That is incorrect. Per our top-level rule at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons:
    Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
    All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
    Is our WP:BLP policy incorrect on it's plain wording? -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are trying to claim that there is the same strict application of BLP policies when applied to talk pages, then yes, you are wrong. There is obviously more leeway in talk page discussions than on mainspace article content. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts.
    2. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.
    3. The BLP policy also applies to user and user talk pages.
    4. The template BLP removal can be used on the talk page of an article to explain why material has been removed under this policy, and under what conditions the material may be replaced.
    Does WP:BLP mention "talk pages" in error? I do not follow your reasoning that the plain language of WP:BLP is wrong. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read the first sentence of WP:BLPTALK. Discussions related to making content choices are given much more leeway and allows for unsourced commentary even if negative. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for giving my words a new meaning. It is very helpful. Can you not tell that people do not agree with you? Fun fact: I also called a terrorist an "idiot" one time on a talkpage. Polygnotus (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would recommend both users stop responding to every comment made by the other and instead allow other editors to comment, which becomes less and less likely the longer this thread becomes an endless tit-for-tat between two editors. – notwally (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I invite others to read through this and help address rampant WP:BLP concerns on both Luis Elizondo and Talk:Luis Elizondo that seem to be running with some level of tolerance by involved editors for years. I am not going to further reply to Polygnotus here myself, as they seem determined to attempt to (apparently) reframe any complaint about their behavior or WP:BLP concerns into attacks on them--I am not going to indulge their desire for a high-speed volley of responses. I'm here to build an encyclopedia and follow our WP:RULES, not insult WP:BLP subjects on their own talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Very Polite Person (talk • contribs)

    Skimming the first 15 references, I'm seeing very questionable sources for a BLP article. Remove all the references that should not be used per WP:RSP/WP:RSN, make sure the WP:BLPSELFPUB/WP:ABOUTSELF refs are used properly or removed, and any other poor sources are used properly or removed.

    My initial reaction to the Cox ref is that it is written as an in-world opinion piece, and should be treated as such. --Hipal (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Honestly, I read through the back and forth and lost track of what this RFC was about. Looking again, All I can say is "What is the big deal?" I think Very Polite Person is asking some legitimate questions that are getting ignored. We need to assume good faith here. Elmmapleoakpine (talk)

    I previously had followed this thread, and the only alleged BLP violation I saw was that another editor had called the article subject a liar on the talk page, which multiple editors have commented is not a BLP violation. If there are just other ordinary content issues, they need to be discussed on the article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Removal of Content from Trisha Krishnan

    [edit]

    You can read my orginal request here. As you can see, including this gives disproportionate attention to a personal event with no lasting significance.W170924 (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In that discussion you were told to contact the Volunteer Responce Team (see WP:Contact us; you want the info-en email address). This is not the VRT. I would suggest you use the VRT instead of constantly drawing attention to the one thing you want excised from the article. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:37, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jéské Couriano: The VRT team redirected me to this noticeboard, explaining that I had been referred incorrectly and that they do not have the authority to control or edit Wikipedia content.W170924 (talk) 18:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @W170924: If that is the case, then a discussion here or on the talk page is warranted. But, again, you're risking a Streisand effect. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 18:50, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed the name of the fiance as it does not seem necessary to keep in the article. The fact that the article subject was engaged for almost half a year seems like it is probably noteworthy. – notwally (talk) 20:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was nine years ago, and if she became engaged on January 23, 2015 and she confirmed it had ended by May 7, 2015, that is only three months and fourteen days. That is not notable or DUE for inclusion any longer. I removed it per the edit request on talk page which is a reasonable request. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with this .It is clearly mentioned in W:RS sources and Wikipedia is not WP:NOTCENSORED.122.172.87.137 (talk) 13:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt McGinn (American songwriter)

    [edit]

    Matt McGinn (American songwriter) has been subject to IP users removing allegations of the subject's arrest, depsite sources like American Songwriter and Billboard existing and reputably proving the subject's arrest. The current links in the article are to Taste of Country articles, which doesn't seem to be a particularly contentious or problematic source of info. I expanded the article some to prevent undue weight regarding his arrest and possibilities of WP:BLP1E, but still feel the info might get removed again. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What puzzles me about sources is that they are lightning quick to report an arrest, but then they never follow up and report the outcome, and of course we can't use court documents to report the outcome which occurred in June 2024, and I did look for sources reporting the disposition of the case, with none found, except the court document. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These sort of cases are always complicated and probably the only reasons I'd ever be tempted to relax WP:BLPPRIMARY. Since the person is themselves apparently of limited notability with not many sources covering them, I would suspect the number of sources covering their arrest is also quite small and while it may seem quite a few in comparison to the few covering them generally, IMO if it was just an arrest it's well worth considering if it's WP:DUE for inclusion if sources didn't care to continue to comment on the arrest afterwards even if the reason is because no source has covered the subject point blank. However the complicating factor here is that while the arrest by itself is something that we IMO could exclude, him being cut off by one company he was working is I'm not so sure. It's something that fairly directly impacts what he's notable for. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually having look at the primary sources, this isn't the sort of case that concerns me so much even if we just leave it hanging with the arrest. I mean yes, our article may seem incomplete. But it's IMO not a case where our lack of mention of the final result seems to cause significant harm to the living subject unlike if it the case was withdrawn, thrown out or otherwise ended in a result where the accused can be considered acquitted of any crime. (Worse of course is where it's not simply an arrest but a conviction which we mention based on source/s, but the conviction being overturned isn't something we can't fine sources for.) Nil Einne (talk) 10:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne: I don't think it's killed his career, as he currently has a songwriter credit on the charts with "Cowboy Songs" by George Birge. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It may not have killed his career, but being cut off by one company he was working with IMO has by definition affects his career. Nil Einne (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't really consider this person to be WP:WELLKNOWN, maybe to a limited audience, but certainly not widespread notability, so I think WP:BLPCRIME is applicable here, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A songwriter who goes to public events and gives interviews and engages in other self-publicity activities is likely a public figure. Widespread notability is not requred for someone to be a public figure. Given that the arrest appears fairly widely reported and has led to professional repurcussions including being dropped by his publisher, I think the allegations are appropriate to include. – notwally (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A fairly high threshold of public activity documented in reliable sources is necessary to elevate people to a public figure status. And the lack of significant coverage in the sources used in the article demonstrate he doesn't meet that threshold of public activity. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "A fairly high threshold of public activity documented in reliable source" is not what the actual public figure guidelines say. "Significant coverage" is a notability standard (your link goes to the general notability guidelines). Those are related but not the same analysis, as someone can be a public figure without being notable. The issue for whether a person is a public figure has to do with self-promotion (voluntary publicity) as opposed to significant coverage. See Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual for some of the factors that can determine whether someone is a public figure. – notwally (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From the first sentence of the actual public figure guidelines: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. Notice the wikilink to public figure. My analysis is based on the fact there is not a multitude of published reliable sources with significant coverage to clearly demonstrate this person meets the threshold of public activity that elevates him to a public figure status. The explanatory essay you linked to, says in the header at the top of the page: This is an explanatory essay about Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons § Subjects notable only for one event. I don't think McGinn is a subject notable only for one event. And BLPCRIME links to both WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE, and while I think McGinn is notable enough for his own article, it's my opinion he doesn't meet the threshold for being well known, so we must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. If the consensus is we must absolutely and definitively include these allegations, then so be it, consensus is policy. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are still conflating notability and public figures. Anything controversial on Wikipedia requires multiple reliable sources, but that is not the same as "significant coverage" under the notability guidelines. The "multiple reliable sources" in the policy you quoted is to determine whether the content is noteworthy and significant enough to override privacy concerns and include in the article (hence why the subsection is under "Presumption in favor of privacy"). The allegations here are covered by multiple reliable sources.
    "Significant coverage", on the other hand, is a notability guideline, and is not particularly relevant to determining whether someone is a public figure. Whether someone is a public figure has to do with the actions of the person (e.g., self-promotion), more than the amount or type of coverage they have received.
    Your newly proposed standard for public figures would mean all public figures are necessarily also notable, which is not always the case. There are many public figures who do not have the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to be considered notable under Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., all local politicians are public figures, but they have to satisfy GNG to be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia). – notwally (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bottom line, McGinn is not well known. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what you mean by "well known", or why you seem insistent on conflating public figures with notability, but in any case "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources." This content is directly related to the article subject's notability and has been reported in multiple high-quality secondary sources. – notwally (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks for your opinion. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Miles Spencer

    [edit]

    (Rookie here, will try to be succinct) Advised by @Explicit to request republish here. Seek to correct reference of phrase deemed poorly sourced with accurate sources.

    COPYING DELETE MESSAGE HERE This page does not exist. The deletion, protection, and move log for the page are provided below for reference. 11:59, 18 September 2024 Explicit talk contribs deleted page Miles Spencer (Expired PROD, concern was: Poorly sourced promotional article on a "media entrepreneur".) Signed @Fletcherpoince — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fletcherpoince (talk • contribs)

    Prior Page Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miles_SpencerFletcherpoince (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC) @FletcherPoince[reply]

    @Fletcherpoince:, Explicit told you to request undeletion at WP:REFUND. That's where you can request that the article be restored, not here. Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fletcherpoince, please also read the message from Liz at User_talk:Fletcherpoince#Miles_Spencer. Schazjmd (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Helpful thx.@Schazjmd Fletcherpoince (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about a professor's article

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This is a personnel matter and not public information. ThisDirect (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Incorrect. There are no sources that discuss this after 2019. ThisDirect (talk) 02:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    If a lawyer were disbarred for a few years their article would definitely mention that. MrOllie (talk) 21:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    This is well-considered & might provide a sound basis for framing this incident. Historyofpoetry (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    ) -- 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Thanks, any good link? Or should I try interlibrary loans? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @GeogSage, send me an email and I'll be able to send you the pdf. -- asilvering (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sent! GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 02:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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
    ThisDirect (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]

    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 [18]. 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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Jim Thornton

    [edit]

    I would like some eyes on Jim Thornton. Sources keep adding an unsourced DOB. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Look like only 10 edits since January 2024, with only 2 consecutive edits by an IP adding the birthdate (first to infobox and then to lead) since then. I don't think that would be enough to qualify for page protection, although that is an option if the editing becomes disruptive in the future. – notwally (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Amato (poet)

    [edit]
    (non-admin closure) OP can reopen if there are additional needs. – notwally (talk) 01:40, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Hi, I'm writing about my Wiki page, as above. My login name, Capisce, is just that -- I am Joe Amato, the subject of the page <joe@joeamato.net>). There are notices at the top of my Wiki page, as of January of this year, re my notability and the lack of citations. I notified the wider literary community about this and they obliged by sending me a number of links to commentary on my work, which includes reviews e.g. in The New York Times and Los Angeles Review of Books. I probably don't need to say that most poets are not reviewed, even unfavorably, in The New York Times. I'm also responsible for my personal website and that of my late partner, Kass Fleisher, on which the material at our Wiki pages is based. I've been busy of late adding references to her Wiki site myself, and I've added external links as well to the books listed at my site. (Someone had eliminated all the links.) As for my Wiki site, there is a good amount of material now there that wasn't there in January, incl. links to the Emeritus page at Illinois State University and to IMDbPro.

    Now, I'm in the awkward position of arguing for my notability, but even a quick glance at Kass Fleisher's and my personal websites should suggest a relatively massive list of publications, reviews, blurbs by any number of literary luminaries. This is a reasonable if general observation. Certainly the two of us together have made a significant contribution to literary culture over the past three decades, on eight different campuses in three different time zones, and books we published under the Steerage Press imprint continue to sell at Amazon. I'm in the process in fact of composing a biographical sketch for Kass Fleisher, which will when it's complete appear at her website.

    In any case I would greatly appreciate any input you might have as to what more might be required to establish my notability. I've been an ardent fan and supporter of Wikipedia for many years now, and I realize you folks are short-staffed. So whatever I can do to help, just let me know. (There are many writers who would be happy to vouch for my notability, but I gather that's not how this works.)

    Many thanks for your attention.

    Sincerely,

    Joe Amato joe@joeamato.net Capisce (talk) 16:42, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Capisce, I added a book review, and since it now looks like a solid pass of WP:NAUTHOR (3), I removed the notability tag. I also removed the commercial links to places where books can be bought, which should not have been there. If you have links to additional book reviews published in reliable sources (so, not user generated content like Amazon or Goodreads), then please feel free to share on Talk:Joe Amato (poet) (I've watchlisted). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Joe Amato is a well known and influential poet and critic, whose voice is respected in literary circles. Kass Fleischer likewise. Glad you are helping to build up his site. ThisDirect (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Capisce, although your question has been answered, your comment and your edits to those two pages raise other issues. You have a conflict of interest that you need to declare (see WP:COI), and with rare exceptions, you should not be editing either your own or Kass Fleisher's WP articles. There are warnings on the talk pages of both articles re: the photos you uploaded, as the copyright holder (whoever took the photo) needs to give permission for the photo to be used; I don't know what the permission process is, but if you don't get more info about that here from someone else, then you can ask about it at the Teahouse. Also read the policies about self-published sources (see WP:SPS), interviews (see WP:IV), primary sources (see WP:PRIMARY), and biography pages (see WP:BLP), which affect things like the use of Fleisher's obituary, her letter to the Utah Historical Quarterly, your IMDBPro page, your interviews, and the IL State page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Capisce, I have left a COI message on your talk page so that you can see what the proper procedures are for editing pages where you have a conflict of interest. In general, you should not be creating or editing articles about yourself or former spouses, but making requests for edits on the articles' talk pages. – notwally (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is pure sexism to call Kass Fleischer "a former spouse"--and incredibly cruel as well. Kass Fleischer was an important woman poet who tragically died too soon. Her work is of the highest quality and needs to be known and preserved. To say she is being supported as "former spouse" is neanderthal bro talk. / Where does one complain about the sexism among you editors? That's what I see here is this assessment of Kass Fleischer. Who do you think you are? ThisDirect (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ThisDirect, you should probably read WP:CIVILITY and considering that you are a new account with a highly aggressive nature in your comments and the fact that multiple people have told you to read WP:BLUDGEON in the short time you have been editing, I think you may not have WP:CIR and this may not be your first time here either. – notwally (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Notwally you seem to have taken revenge for my comments on the BW site. At the same time, it appears that there is some kind of fraud going on, as I have been solicited for the services of a "wiki crafter" to restore my page--who could be the same person who is taking it down. I am asking that the site be protected and that a complaint process be initiated. ThisDirect (talk) 01:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThisDirect, it is neither sexism nor cruel to point out that because Kass Fleischer is Joe Amato's former spouse, he has a conflict of interest and should not be editing her page, per the WP:COI policy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    However, it is insensitive to refer to a late spouse as a former spouse. Mhkay (talk) 10:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that per her article their marriage ended before her death so it seems a fair enough description of the complexities here. (To my mind, "late spouse" generally means that the marriage was ended by the death, rather than an earlier divorce. Note that even the OP said "late partner" rather than "late spouse" which is an important distinction since they may have been partners even if no longer married, the source we use does say they remained close. Yes you could say "late former spouse", but well, see my next comment.) More importantly, many Wikipedias per to use direct language per MOS:EUPHEMISM etc. notwally's comment was a general one (they said "former spouses" but there was only one spouse mentioned) and more accurately described the issue. They could have said "current or former partners" to be clearer, but the issue is people have a COI for all of their current and former partners, no matter whether they're still in a relationship or their partner is deceased or the relationship has just changed. While editors will generally try to be sensitive the feelings of other editors when discussing them or their family or friends, we're here to build an encyclopaedia and so this does mean we may sometimes need to discuss details such whether a subject is notable, problems with sources, content for articles that subject may not like such as criticism the subject has received or controversial things the subject has been involved in. Any editor here does needs to be able to deal with this even if it concerns them or their family or friends. If they can't, I'd suggest they avoid even the article talk page as well as BLPN and restrict themselves to using their talk page with the HELPME template (as per WP:BLPCOMPLAINT). Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I'd consider this an example of the sort of thing I'm referring to. Some of the stuff I've said my be distressing. But since the issue came up, not raised by the OP BTW, it's only reasonable that we deal with it in a straight forward manner even if that causes distress. I've tried to word my response to reduce the possibility of such, but ultimately there is a limit of what I feel I can do while still getting the point across. Nil Einne (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing remotely offensive about the term "former spouses". I would recommend not wasting time responding to baseless complaints. WP:DENY. – notwally (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sexism in this thread is remarkable. Kass Fleischer is important as an "author"; she is a notable person. Such persons have relations to other people who know and care about them. Diminishing her and that caring relationship shows a true moral deficiency here. ThisDirect (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I want to add only that the OP has acted reasonably well throughout. They do not seem to have been aware of the letter of our COI policies, but did seem to attempt to maintain a NPOV, did not try to remove the notability tag themselves, etc; their responses were constructive. The two articles in question have now been reviewed by experienced editors without COI, and I think we're done here. We might be getting off topic, and perhaps an uninvolved editor would consider closing this discussion. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Lea Haggett

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

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

    Daniel Ricciardo

    [edit]

    Currently having an issue with the Daniel Ricciardo page. He is listed as both Australian and Italian in his intro, despite not being notable for being Italian. He does have Italian citizenship, but he was not born there, he has not represented Italy. While he is notable for being solely an Australian racing driver. It feels like a breach of MOS:NATIONALITY. I and others have tried to have this changed. But it keeps being reverted by a very small number of users. Who have also stated on the talk page that because they have sources listing him as having Italian citizenship that's what matters. When asked to provide an argument for why it should stay using the guidelines. They have either ignored that or said that "exceptions can apply", while one who is in support of the current wording has asked why I care about it so much and to just ignore it.

    Can someone have a look and give their view on the matter. Because I see this as a clear breach of the guidelines. But discussions on the talk page are going nowhere. Basetornado (talk) 20:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This a content dispute and there seems to be consensus on the article talk page for not including it in the lead. Even if there is not consensus, the WP:ONUS for consensus is on those seeking to include the disputed content. Italian nationality in the lead was also disputed in the Paolo Banchero article from memory.[19] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone ahead and removed it based on the article talk consensus against inclusion, and the supporting source given did not independently verify that he held the Italian passport.[20] It only verifies the driver's quote that he does. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You. That was my belief as well. Basetornado (talk) 08:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pietro Amenta

    [edit]

    Off-wiki discussions suggest that the Pietro Amenta article is the subject of a recent Italian GDPR court case [21], which ordered the WMF to deindex the article from search engines. Separate from the court case, I am unclear whether this individual even warrants an article in the first place, given that the only sources in the article are about their conviction for child pornography related offences. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've G10'd. From the creation of the article it has been a coatrack for the criminal charges with no claim of notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He meets WP:NPOL, disagree it was a G10 case. Struggling to see how a Vatican judge being convicted of child sex offences is not worthy of mention. AusLondonder (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AusLondonder: For what it's worth, it's mentioned in the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country and Catholic Church sexual abuse cases in Europe articles (where his surname is misspelled "Armenta"). Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is pretty extraordinary. The court didn't even order the article be deleted, he clearly meets notability requirements and his article has been removed without discussion. G10 has been misapplied here, it's for "biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced". AusLondonder (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Subject doesn't meet the criteria in NPOL, and I would argue the deletion met the requirements in G10 based on WP:BLPDEL. The page served no other purpose other than to document a clergy member whose only notability was pleading guilty to criminal charges. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was not an attack page as defined by G10, speedy cases should be pretty unambiguous. Should have been taken to AfD if there was a concern about notability. AusLondonder (talk) 19:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For refererence here is the state of the article as it existed prior to deletion. The article was only about 3 sentences long, which basically only said that he was a judge and that he was convicted of child pornography offences. Is it an unsourced attack page? No, but it is largely negative in tone, and did not meaningfully discuss him in any way other than his conviction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've seen it. We have many hundreds if not thousands of BLPs of convicted criminals. Take a look at Category:Sex offenders or Category:Catholic priests convicted of child sexual abuse, many primarily notable for their crimes. As you said it wasn't an unsourced attack page and shouldn't have been speedied G10. AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was clearly covered under WP:BLPDEL, Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. There is no earlier acceptable revision, and there was no sourcing present to allow it to be readily rewritten. The only source not about the criminal acts didn't mention the article subject. The article clearly failed WP:BLPBALANCE, and as such I deleted it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We'll have to agree to disagree on this, I can't see how it meets the criteria of G10, seems more like a case for discussion at AfD. People can attract notability because they were a Vatican judge involved in child sex offences. AusLondonder (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm always open to review of my actions, so you're more than welcome to bring this to deletion review. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed the name at the two overview articles mentioned by Hemiauchenia, and note they have better sourcing and more information (I did however remove salacious specifics on one charge from one article). Now that they have the correct name for readers who may search for him, those mentions seem adequate unless there's continuing coverage. Since this is at this noticeboard, I'll ask here whether anyone thinks a redirect should be created, to Catholic Church sexual abuse cases by country? That might be seen as defiance of the spirit of the court order, but it would also make the original article a tad harder to find. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've created a redirect. Courtesy ping ScottishFinnishRadish. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Goldie Watson

    [edit]

    This article is not a biography of a living person and as far as I can tell, does not contain any information about living people. The BLP policy need not apply. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this concern.

    Unbandito (talk) 22:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Unbandito The subject is not an LP, sure, but why is this a concern? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The page initially had a BLP template on its talk page, (probably due to the mention of the Clinton-Gore campaign) but that has since been dealt with. I think we're all set. Unbandito (talk) 11:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. So the template on the talk page was appropriate. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, don't we usually "activate" [22] that template on actual BLP:s, though? Like Unbandito said, I see no obvious reason to have it on that particular talkpage. Not that it actually harms anything. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:56, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    True, it doesn't make any difference whether it is there or not, because the policy still applies regardless. Unbandito said in his original statement - The BLP policy need not apply - which is not true, because the policy applies to any page on Wikipedia, including this page. If a discussion took place on the talk page of Goldie Watson, and a living person is mentioned for some reason, the policy applies to that talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:03, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, Unbandito's confusion likely stems from missing the mention than on not knowing that BLP applies to any page since they said "and as far as I can tell, does not contain any information about living people" suggesting they recognised BLP applies to any information about living people. And they're almost correct, perhaps not that surprising given their age but apart from that brief mention of the campaign everyone else mentioned in the page seems to be well past even BDP. (They campaign is also easy to miss unless you think about it since it's a direct link to a living person so e.g. you won't see a death date if you hover over the link.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, even though I wrote the article I forgot I included that thing about the Clinton-Gore campaign when I made this post. If that mention is enough for the page to require a BLP template then so be it, I just assumed it was added automatically in error and wanted to let someone know. I should have been more precise and said I don't think the talk page needs a BLP template rather than The BLP policy need not apply. I understand what you mean about the policy applying across the entire website. Unbandito (talk) 03:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Randy Barlow

    [edit]

    Randy Barlow supposedly died in 2020, but the only source cited was Saving Country Music, a self-published blog listed as unreliable on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. I have not found an obituary or any third-party source corroborating his death, just his personal Facebook (not a verified one) and a couple of Web forums. What should be done here? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, since you removed the source (blog) here in this edit, and left it unsourced, I removed it. His website http://www.randybarlow.net/ hasn't been updated either about his supposedly passing away. If someone finds a reliable source, then it can be added back. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But if we accept that that is his official website (and it appears to be), then we must accept that the facebook page it links to was authorized (we would generally count that as a "verified" page, acceptable under WP:FACEBOOK)... and here is a post from July 30 of this year, noting that it's the 4th anniversary of his death. That should be sufficient. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, I guess that will work, weird that there is no obit. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    T. William Olle

    [edit]

    I added a date of death to this article, having found the information in another Wiki, and then confirmed it with FindMyPast, a database that extracts the information directly from official registers of births and deaths. The edit was reverted by another user User_talk:Jkaharper on the grounds that it was inadequately sourced and violated WP:BLP. This seems unreasonable to me. The information is verifiable and uncontentious; it's hard to see what information I could find to support it that doesn't count as original research. Would the primary source (the GRO death certificate) be considered preferable to the secondary source (FindMyPast)? It's totally unclear to me what hurdles I need to jump over to satisfy this editor.

    If it was a common name, of course, then there would be a risk of error and the information might then fall into the "contentious" category. But that surely doesn't apply here. Mhkay (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Other wikis are not reliable sources and FindMyPast has an entry on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources where it is noted as "Generally Unreliable" - noting amongst other things that the dates listed for births and deaths or dates of registration not necessarily the date when the birth or death actually occurred. So better, reliable sources are preferred.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:56, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If we're talking about a case where BLP applies either BDP or we don't at least have reliable secondary source confirmation of death that's old enough that we can be sure it doesn't then using primary sources directly for a date of death would violate WP:BLPPRIMARY. If it's not a possible BLP issue personally I'd still oppose it but perhaps you'd find more traction for allowing it. In any case, this is the wrong board for that. As for FindMyPast, I don't know much about the source, but the perennial source entry suggests, and to some extent our article suggests all it's really doing is collating primary sources and presenting the information. It sounds like it's not even doing a good job of collating the info since it makes transcription errors. Then the date of registration problem. Therefore while it might be a secondary source, it's not a reliable one, it doesn't have the reputation for fact checking or accuracy. It doesn't really do any fact-checking and it's not even accurate. Note that if you hang out at BLPN for long enough, one thing you'll quickly learn is that we do get a lot of cases where we're fairly sure someone has died, but we don't have and might never have reliable secondary source confirmation of this. I think the issue has probably reduced with the stricter notability standards especially around those involved in sports in recent years but it's still there. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I added refs. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So my question is: what do I need to do to correct the information in the article? I can do original research, which is easy in this case but apparently not allowed; I can't find a published (secondary) source that is considered reliable, because like many people about 40 years elapsed between when he was a public figure and when he died. Are we just expected to leave the article wrongly implying that he is still alive? Mhkay (talk) 16:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incidentally, FindMyPast is a mixed bag. It contains a lot of user-contributed information which makes it about as reliable as a wiki. It also contains information (of which this case is an example) derived by automatic data feeds from reliable primary sources, which for 21st century English deaths is totally reliable and essentially equivalent to a primary source. Mhkay (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This comes up here a lot. It's far too easy when using OR to get it wrong. The point of this policy is to protect our subjects from harm, and that tends to far outweigh any other need. Reporting that a person is dead is a really big deal. I mean huge. So we can't take that lightly. We need very reliable sources for that, and there's just no way around it. Hoaxes happen. People try to play jokes on social media, or even fake their own death, so we can't be too careful. It's far more harmful and traumatizing to the subject to report their death prematurely than it is to simply have an article that says nothing about it. We have to be 100% sure.
    Unfortunately, this leads to cases like this where the death simply isn't reported anywhere. It'd be nice for us if the newspapers automatically gave everybody who dies an obituary, but that's not how it works. Friends and family have to write and submit an obit, and if no one does that, then there's little we can do. I guess after 120 years we can safely assume a person is dead. There is no harm in having an article that hasn't reported the subjects death; paper encyclopedias do it all the time. It's far better in such cases to err on the side of caution and wait for a reliable source to report it. Zaereth (talk) 16:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think people worry too much about our article not saying someone has died. Our article not saying someone has died should never be interpreted to mean they are still alive. At least with divorces, it can cause distress for subjects when our article doesn't report these and so people may think they are still married to someone with who they no longer want to be associated with or where there are other reasons it causes concern (e.g. Emily St. John Mandel). But with deaths, I don't see why it matters. Nil Einne (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. People often think of an encyclopedia like it's a newspaper. There are many similarities. Both are forms of expository writing. But there are big differences. Newspapers are written both in the first person and in the present. (Not to be confused with present-tense verbs.) Encyclopedias are written in the third person and in a timeless, or "perfect", perspective. (Not to be confused with perfect-tense; it's more of an overall concept than speaking of strictly grammar.) This means we write as if the narrator is some god-like entity that watches the universe from outside of time. There's no today, yesterday, or tomorrow (unless speaking on the magnitude of eons). Information can be presented in a more logical order rather than strictly chronologically.
    This is because, if this article remains unchanged for the next century, when someone reads it, it won't sound outdated. A century from now, anyone who reads it will know the subject is dead even if the article doesn't say it, but between here and then there's no reason to assume he's not either. The timeless perspective leaves either possibility open. It's wonderful information to have, when we can get it, but it's not the end of the world if we can't. However, we need to insist on high-quality, secondary sources, because reporting a death is a great responsibility. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    Template:Delete all sync links 2607:FEA8:4C40:150:1858:FCF5:2FE0:323B (talk) 10:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Djair Terraii Parfitt .. Name Change

    [edit]

    Hello .. this is Djair Terraii Parfitt . The topic in the article Djair Parfitt-Williams .

    http://www.islandstats.com/sport.asp?sport=2&assoc=1&newsid=63984

    ^^ as you can see in the article published above in my home country of Bermuda by a newspaper . I have legally & officially changed my name to “Djair Terraii Parfitt” . I do not have Carl or Williams in my name & needs to be changed please . As online & in work people mistake me for Parfitt-Williams, as Wikipedia is one of the first sources that come up . Kind Regards , Justin14ICU (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Gregory Clark (economist)

    [edit]

    A number of brand-new accounts have been adding large amounts of content to this BLP. Some of it is well sourced but whole sections are either entirely unsourced or sourced only to the subject's own work.

    I've opened up a conversation on the talk page, and it's been explained to me that these folks are working on a class project. Given that this appears to be an entirely good-faith effort to complete a project for school, I don't want to simply proceed with a blanket revert. But I also don't have time right now to go through these massive edits, separating the acceptable from the unacceptable.

    Further complicating the matter, the subject is a scholar whose work is pretty controversial, dealing with eugenics and purported connections between genetics and social class. He's been boycotted, etc. Not quite WP:ARBR&I, but adjacent. So extra care is warranted.

    If anyone has the time and interest to take a look, it would be appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've raised the issue at Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Students editors at Gregory Clark (economist) as they might be able to help by contacting the educator to provide guidance on how to manage these things if it's a US or Canadian institution. Nil Einne (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, thank you. I didn't know that that noticeboard exists. Generalrelative (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    StopAntisemitism

    [edit]

    I'd like the colleagues to evaluate the BLP violation claim in the page StopAntisemitism. Here is the BLP-based revert. Please voice your opinion in Talk:StopAntisemitism#"Antisemite_of_the_Year". --Altenmann >talk 20:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like a clear WP:LABEL and WP:BLPSTYLE violation. BLP policies apply to any page that mentions a living person, and contentious labels would need to be commonly used. – notwally (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, agreed. Unless if there are multiple reputable sources indicating Greta Thunberg is antisemitic, we probs shouldn't include that. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    actually, similarly, there is a list of "islamaphobe of the years" on this page... we should probably remove that list. edit: just did it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS talk discussion on wider implications of Kolkata "case"

    [edit]

    Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/India-related articles#The Kolkata "case", wider implications?

    For the interested. If you have an opinion, please share. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussing whether Len Blavatnik is an oligarch or not

    [edit]

    Please see post on WP:NPOVN#Discussing_whether_Len_Blavatnik_is_an_oligarch_or_not and talk page discussion, but trying to argue with a COI editor about wording to use around Blavatnik. Trying to get some more eyes on it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Subject: [Michael Eric Dyson] Violations of Biographies of Living Persons Policy

    [edit]

    Michael Eric Dyson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    I believe the current Harassment section on Michael Eric Dyson violates Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy. The section relies heavily on sources that are student-run publications and social media posts, some of which no longer exist. These sources fail to meet the standards for reliable, verifiable information, especially for serious accusations like harassment. Additionally, no legal action or formal charges were pursued, and Georgetown’s investigation did not result in any formal findings.

    Furthermore, the language previously used, such as "predator," is inflammatory and biased, contributing to a misleading portrayal of Michael Eric Dyson. Wikipedia aims to provide a balanced and neutral representation, especially in cases where serious allegations are involved. Given the absence of legal or formal consequences and the removal of critical social media posts by key individuals, keeping this section would perpetuate unverified claims. This would undermine the integrity of Wikipedia as a factual and neutral platform.

    Therefore, I respectfully request the removal of this section on the grounds that it violates the principles of fairness and accuracy as outlined in the BLP policy.

    Please review this and consider the recent revisions made. The relevant diff is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Eric_Dyson&oldid=1248781049. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmelborne (talk • contribs) 13:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd say that section is very poorly sourced and UNDUE. BLP says - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. This is not well documented. There is a podcast, a campus newspaper and another source from "Her Campus", which appears to be WP:UGC. Melissa Harris-Perry, who conducted the podcast interview even says during the interview with Dyson - "The allegation has not been widely reported on". Unless some high-quality reliable sources can be found, I'd remove that entire section. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this GrapheneOS history allowed under WP:ABOUTSELF?

    [edit]

    In April 2024 this edit (Special:Diff/1218966456) removed a small section due to it supposedly failing to pass Wikipedia policies.

    This information has been attempted to be added in multiple times. But is removed due to objections from some editors

    There does not seem to be other reliable sources (maybe this androguru.com source, but this may not be considered reliable) available that could be used in place of, or along side Micay's cited tweet.

    In my opinion, it could pass under WP:ABOUTSELF, with the only potential issue as it is currently in the diff above, is the quote used from Micay's tweet, although this could be moved into the citation, or removed entirely. 2601:19E:8380:B570:9637:2CEB:8EBD:A6A7 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    nitter is an alternative frontend for WP:TWITTER, so just change the link to be the correct one for that and his resignation tweet is probs allowable as a source.
    In general, using github as a source is bad, as WP:NOTHOW states we are not an explanation/manual for github code; you cannot state that the guy is still contributing to the corp's github repos based on github as that is WP:OR. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the input.

    Not sure why nitter was used there (maybe because of guest viewing restrictions? But since the tweet doesn't seem to be public anymore, archives will need to used anyways), but I agree that it should be switched out.

    The GitHub source shouldn't be needed anyways, since the fact that Micay is still listed as a GrapheneOS Foundation director (with a Canadian Government source) can be used.

    Any input on whether or not this androguru.com source can be used. I'm unsure if this is more of a blog, or similar to XDA Developers or Android Authority.
    2601:19E:8380:B570:9637:2CEB:8EBD:A6A7 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not OR to cite GitHub contributions for the proposition that someone is active on GitHub, any more that it's OR to cite baseball statistics for the proposition that someone plays baseball. NOTHOW is not at all relevant here. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the issue be due rather than OR? If no-one has noted they are active on GitHub then why should it be included. The section is only about stepping down as the lead developer, not quitting the project altogether. So why does it matter that they are still active, there has been nothing to say there would be any change in that. As the IP editor says theybcan still be sources as being part of the project to another source. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 16:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Photo

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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

    [edit]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1249016376"