Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here. | ||
---|---|---|
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.
Additional notes:
| ||
Rapper Playboi Carti's birth date has been brought into question following the release of his track H00dByAir and the release of footage of his arrest (with him saying his birth year at 10:43) in 2022. Consensus has not been reached, and editing has gone back and forth between the dates 1995 and 1996 for weeks without solid conversation. The majority of reliable sources state his birth date as 1996, but more questionable ones - such as a leaked driver's license state it is 1995.
This detail is being consistently contested, with edit requests and various users. I'd appreciate another opinion on how to proceed, as at this point I'm unsure whether continuous reverts is doing any good. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 00:44, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- This issue was filed at DRN about 36 hours ago. I advised the filer that BLPN would probably be a better forum. If reliable sources disagree on his date of birth, I would suggest that it be removed from the infobox, and a brief mention made in the article that different sources provide different birth dates. However, if all of the reliable secondary sources agree, then the inconsistent sources are not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think the issue with this specific case is that the footage of the rapper's arrest would likely fall under WP:RSPRIMARY. Although it's difficult to acknowledge that we cannot take footage from the rapper directly as the end-all, I think it is necessary to do so in this circumstance. Do you think it's worth putting a notice at the top of his talk page, too, to draw attention to this issue? EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 23:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- This issue was filed at DRN about 36 hours ago. I advised the filer that BLPN would probably be a better forum. If reliable sources disagree on his date of birth, I would suggest that it be removed from the infobox, and a brief mention made in the article that different sources provide different birth dates. However, if all of the reliable secondary sources agree, then the inconsistent sources are not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can see, there are no reliable references for 1995 (video on random Youtube account excluded for obvious reasons) and plenty for 1996. The only action needed is the warning, followed by blocking if necessary, of anyone adding the improperly referenced 1995 date). FDW777 (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with this judgement - thank you. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @EphemeralPerpetuals: Can we not use his verified social media to add the correct date per WP:DOB?
- [1] This tweet would line up with what is in the video, and is by the subject himself and qualifies as a birthday related text per the DOB section. @FDW777: wondering your thoughts as well.
- Awshort (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with this judgement - thank you. EphemeralPerpetuals (they/them)talk 19:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Virgil Griffith
User:Death Editor 2, who claims User:Death Editor was "banned by mistake" because he lost his password, continually adds "convicted felon" to the first line of Virgil Griffith. I tried reverting, but user immediately [de-reverted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgil_Griffith&oldid=prev&diff=1190677012]. It feels rude, because the first line of Bill Cosby is
- William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/ KOZ-bee; born July 12, 1937) is an American former comedian, actor, spokesman, and media personality.
If Death Eater 2 had their way, it would be
- William Henry Cosby Jr. (/ˈkɒzbi/ KOZ-bee; born July 12, 1937) is an American former comedian, actor, spokesman, media personality, and convicted rapist.
Would love to get this disagreement settled. --TIB (talk) 23:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- Looking at the talk page User talk:Death Editor 2, it's just issue after issue. They seem to really like adding defamatory words to the first sentence of biographical pages. --TIB (talk) 23:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I keep updating this, I did not at the time know that they added 'convicted rapist' to the Danny Masterson page, but they did. I predict it appears on the Cosby page soon now that I have suggested it! --TIB (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- If our Osama bin Laden intro is a pretty tame "was a Saudi-born Islamic dissident and militant leader," then "felon" may be a bit undue for a biography. Zaathras (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was unbanned as the records of my contributions for that account clearly show. And 'felon' does not apply that someone is a bad person, it merely states that they were convicted of a felony which they may or may not have committed. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- And I WAS banned by mistake because I kept reverting the edits that showed that various islamic terrorist groups were on the side of climate change. Death Editor 2 (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Although I'm on wikibreak, I logged in to comment. Please remember that Cosby was never convicted of an offence which was called rape in the legal system where he was convicted. He was convicted of three counts aggravated indecent assault, his only one (at least for anything like this) and this conviction was vacated. For BLP reasons, we should always avoid renaming an offence in an article, especially when there is an offence with the same name in the legal system where someone was convicted. There are also a bunch civil judgments, handling those can always be tricky but whatever we do they're clearly not convictions.
In other words, we should never have called him a convicted rapist since unfortunately that was never true. I mean if editors want to say it's rape on talk pages, within reason, personally I'm not going to pushback on that. (Just like I don't mind say I find Cosby's lack of any conviction for rape unfortunate.) But definitely never in wikivoice in article text unless you can establish the vast, vast majority of RS do that.
Perhaps more importantly, I think it's well accepted that when someone's conviction is overturned we should never continue to say they are a convicted A no matter whether you can argue it's technically true. You can continue to refer to the overturned conviction but it needs to be done in a context where you quickly make clear it was overturned.
So IMO, if anyone now tries to add convicted rapist anywhere in the Bill Cosby article, they should be warned and then if they repeat either topic banned from BLPs or site blocked or banned. Heck even if they accurately name the conviction but don't make it clear within the same context it was vacated. So it's really a terrible example to use. Note that prior to the conviction being vacated, we did mention "being convicted of a number of sex offenses in 2018" in the first sentence [2].
George Pell is a good example where we don't label him a convicted anything but do mention the conviction in the lead along with it being quashed in the very next sentence. Note that prior to it being quashed, we did label him a convicted child sex offender [3]. Note also there was a bunch of discussion on how to handle this around the time it happened especially whether to call it a wrongful conviction. I think it was felt this was unnecessary when we're going to say it was quashed in the very next sentence.
More generally, the issue of labeling people convicted of crimes has been contentious for a long time. Two recent broad discussions I'm aware of are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355#Descriptions of BLPs and Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Archive 53#Labels again - request for clarification/clearer guidance. And the essay Wikipedia:Crime labels has some links to discussions on specific subjects.
Personally I support the essay's suggestion of re-working the lead to make them more descriptive and avoid labels. But as I said in the BLPN discussion, I don't think we're that consistent (or fair).
However in so much as there is consistency, I think Griffith is much more like Klete Keller (who we do sort of label) than he is Masterson or for that matter Cosby and Pell prior to their convictions being overturned. All three of these had extreme highly profile careers prior to their convictions so that they were extremely well known for these careers and remain so, although their convictions were for extremely serious crimes and very high profile. (Cases like Osama bin Laden and Elizabeth Holmes are IMO even more different so I'm not sure how useful they are to consider as comparisons.)
Both Keller and Griffith by comparison weren't so high profile even if perhaps they crossed the threshold for notability. Griffith seems to have done more different things that got some minor attention that Keller, although I don't actually see any source in the article that is on Griffith from before the conviction. To be clear, I'm not including the several which seem to be something he was involved in but where I'm guessing he's only mentioned in passing. But whatever the case, they aren't people who were particularly well known. However they were involved in quite high profile convictions. Griffith's seem more serious (in terms of the sentence) while Keller's seems more high profile. But ultimately we're talking about cases where it's quite likely that their conviction is one of the only reasons people even known about them, especially now.
Note that I still don't support labeling Griffith. However I do think if we remove the label, the conviction should be mentioned much sooner than it is since as I said it's probably one of the most significant things about him. More generally, given the previous discussions I think it's clear there's no established consensus on how to handle such things. Therefore I don't feel the change to Griffith can be said to be enough of a BLP violation that it needs immediate removal. Instead both sides need to avoid edit warring and discuss, and seek more opinions etc to try and resolve the dispute, which yes this is part of.
- Even if a person, who had a long previous career with notable achievements, is later convicted of a serious crime, tacking that onto the first sentence of lede is really messy and not an impartial tone. I would expect that conviction to be discussed in the lede somewhere, but ramroding it into the first sentence is sloppy and is strong evidence of pushing a POV into an article. — Masem (t) 15:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Mia Khalifa
There is currently a discussion at Talk:Mia Khalifa#Birthday again regarding sources for a living person's date of birth. Thank you. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 02:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Emily Hampshire
Here we have another actress with conflicting sources regarding her birth year. The source that's currently cited was published a couple months ago and says she's 42.[4] I've also come across other articles that claim that to be her age as well. However the source that was cited prior is an article that was published in 2009 and talks about how she just turned 30 and that she's three years older than Jay Baruchel(born 1982).[5] And in this article she says that she doesn't wish to be in her 20s again and in your 30s, you start to know who you are.
What should be done? Do we either
A) Remove the birth year that's currently listed(1980-1981) and put in a footnote saying that there's conflicting info regarding her birth year.
or
B) Put in both birth years and cite the sources. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
EDIT: I started a discussion over at Talk:Emily_Hampshire to see if a consensus can be reached. Kcj5062 (talk) 08:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- I see no reason that must be a conflict. They're both consistent with (early) 1980, likely not 1981. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 07:39, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The 2009 article was from October of that year. If she turned 30 that year, then her birth year would be 1979. And as mentioned above, it talks about her being three years older than Jay Baruchel who was born in 1982. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. I was thinking of it in a fuzzy "I just turned 30 at some point in the last few years" sort of way, but applied the uncertainty in the wrong direction; October 2009 is the latest possible date for her to turn 30, not the earliest. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- For various reasons I believe the Toronto Star article more than the BBC one. Primarily: 1) it seems inherently more plausible to me that an actress in her early 40s would want to be seen as slightly younger than she actually is than that an actress in her late 20s would want to be seen as slightly older, and 2) in the BBC article the age is just an aside and it's the kind of minor detail that would be easy to get slightly wrong, whereas the Toronto Star article is a profile largely based on an interview where she specifically talks about her reaction to turning 30. My inclination would be to put the birthdate suggested by that article in the lead, and put the BBC discrepancy in a footnote. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not by my computer currently, but I would suggest the opposite based on the multitude of sources pointing towards the BBC article suggested age. I pulled around 12 sources this morning that all pointed towards the BBC birthday of August 29, 1981, along with several self published aources on her birthday.
- I'll follow up with the full reference list once home, but I would suggest a note suggesting something such as 'While most interviews point towards a 1981 birthday, in a X interview she stated she had turned 30, putting her birth year at 1979'. The one thing that is able to be sourced to her is her birthday is on August 29, of whatever year she was born on.
- [6]
- Reply to costar wishing her a happy birthday on Aug 29
- [7]
- Happy Birthday from the official Twitter account of her show on Aug 29
- [8]
- Same as above on Aug 29, different year.
- [9]
- For various reasons I believe the Toronto Star article more than the BBC one. Primarily: 1) it seems inherently more plausible to me that an actress in her early 40s would want to be seen as slightly younger than she actually is than that an actress in her late 20s would want to be seen as slightly older, and 2) in the BBC article the age is just an aside and it's the kind of minor detail that would be easy to get slightly wrong, whereas the Toronto Star article is a profile largely based on an interview where she specifically talks about her reaction to turning 30. My inclination would be to put the birthdate suggested by that article in the lead, and put the BBC discrepancy in a footnote. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're right. I was thinking of it in a fuzzy "I just turned 30 at some point in the last few years" sort of way, but applied the uncertainty in the wrong direction; October 2009 is the latest possible date for her to turn 30, not the earliest. ℰmi1y⧼T·C⧽ 08:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
- The 2009 article was from October of that year. If she turned 30 that year, then her birth year would be 1979. And as mentioned above, it talks about her being three years older than Jay Baruchel who was born in 1982. Kcj5062 (talk) 07:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
post from costar on Aug 29
birthday cake post on Aug 29
- Awshort (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Awshort Please enjoy this brief profile from 2013 when Hampshire was listed as being 32 (you will have to click the arrows to see Hampshire). I will let you do the math. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Awshort (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's a article from The Globe And The Mail that was published in September 2012 and has 33 listed as her age[11]. This also implies a 1979 birth year. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Kcj5062 I suspect that further research would find that earlier reporting uses the 1979 birth date and later reporting uses the 1981 birth date, but there are likely to be fewer sources early in her career since she has less work to report on. I think we know what is going on here. Using the more common 1981 birth date with a footnote is likely the best course of action. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit Purses Other than the quote which ironically enough is the only time she has ever mentioned her age, all sources I ran across point to the 1981 date. As I had mentioned in my previous post above, I also agree with stating the 1981 date and the 1979 date in a footnote. It is also worth noting that the Hollywood Reporter link below that has her listed as being 32, also features Jay Baruchel being 31 at the time of publication and included in the same list. It adds doubt to the "three years older" part that the original interviewer threw into the Toronto Star article.
- Dec 11, 2011
The West Island-born actor, just turned 31,
- (She just turned 30 rather than 31 if the math is correct)
- Sept 6, 2013
Emily Hampshire (32, Actress)
- Mar 16, 2015
The Montreal-born Hampshire, 33,
- Apr 28, 2015
The 33-year-old says many Canadian
- May 17, 2017
the 35-year-old actress says.
- Dec 14, 2018
Geiger, 30, and Hampshire, 37, first revealed
- Feb 11, 2019
does know for sure is that the Schitt’s Creek star, 37,
- Aug 28, 2021
later, the Canada native, now 39,
- Sep 1, 2021
Hampshire, 40, revealed.
- Jan 2, 2023
The 41-year-old Hampshire, from Montreal,
- Apr 4, 2023
Emily Hampshire, 41,
- Nov 1, 2023
On Tuesday, the 42-year-old actress,
- Nov 2, 2023
Hampshire, 42, told her
- Awshort (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Counterfeit PursesYeah this is looking similar to the Rebel Wilson situation that occurred years ago where before she became famous, there were a couple of articles about her that were published that listed an age that matched up to a 1980 birth year and then once she became famous, articles started listing her age that matched up a 1986 birth year. And it turned that the earlier articles were correct all along. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the same were to happen with Hampshire. Anyhow a footnote has been added to her page. Kcj5062 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
David Steel
I wrote to you before pointing our that the report that I resigned from the Lords following the Cyril Smith enquiry was wrong. I in fact retired as planned at the end of March on the 55th anniversary of my by-election! DS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:3304:D101:6858:CE5D:5CE3:7C5E (talk) 17:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- But decent sources seem to put the resignation as consequent.[12] Bon courage (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Can you point to a reliable source which supports this? The BBC and Guardian sources cited in the article David Steel regarding the resignation seem to support the claims that our article is making. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does have to be very careful about interpreting sources, especially for articles about living people. However the Guardian article cited after that sentence in the lead says:
StarryGrandma (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)He said he had already been contemplating retirement from the House of Lords but would now stand down as “soon as possible”.
Allegations that district attorney of Fulton County Georgia Fani Willis had hired a boyfriend as special prosecutor have been widely reported in reliable sources.
- CBS News article:
A Fulton County commissioner says he is now pursuing an investigation
...he would pursue a “full investigation”
- ABC News source:
would be "pursuing as full of an investigation as is permitted by Fulton County government."
Willis "sought to quash" the subpoena and accused Wade's wife.
- PBS Newshour article:
Fani Willis is accusing the estranged wife of a special prosecutor she hired of trying to obstruct her criminal election-interference case ... seeking to quash the subpoena.
- Politico article:
Willis moved to quash the subpoena
Certain editors would like to keep this information out of the article on BLP grounds. THe reason provide is Willis hasnt responded and we can only consider inclusion after an investigation is complete. The reasoning seems questionable. DarrellWinkler (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- The reason is because the editors are looking to include content that insinuates wrongdoing on the part of Willis, a highly visible figure who is trying one of Donald Trump's criminal cases (see 2020 Georgia election investigation and Georgia election racketeering prosecution for more on that). I will note that there is a section titled "Allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by Fani Willis" at the racketeering prosecution article that I do not object to, as it is not a BLP and is the appropriate article for discussing pretrial motions.
- This is one edit I've reverted. This is based on no concrete evidence that has been presented as of yet, but insinuations from the court filings of one of Trump's codefendants. The judge has yet to hear arguments relating to this. In addition to WP:BLPGOSSIP, there are WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS grounds to keep this out, at least for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- While I may not specifically endorse the edits you reverted, I would note that what comes to including basic facts per PUBLICFIGURE, your unsubstantiated references BLPGOSSIP and NOTNEWS have zero relevance. Please study the policies you cite and you shall see it yourself. Your claim that there is
"no concrete evidence"
is also irrelevant. What matters is that there are widely reported allegations and there is no indication that the allegations can be promptly dismissed as false. RECENTISM is an essay that is also cited BLPSTYLE, and may helpful in determining due weight, but the essay cannot subvert another policy, specifically PUBLICFIGURE. Politrukki (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC) - Since my edit is being referenced and again being misrepresented here, I'll chip in my take.
- You have claimed repeatedly that this is only based on court filings, which is incorrect. RS have done their own research and reporting on this. RS report on Wade's lack of prosecutorial experience while being assigned the lead role by Willis in this case - per Washington Post, Politico, Associated Press, based on their analysis of Wade's career and typical procedure. They note the >$650,000 he has been paid, larger than Willi's own salary, doing a job that normally is done by civil servants, per aforementioned WaPo article based on county records. They report on the investigatory measures taken by Fulton County audit chair sourced from him per NBC News. And some more up to date reporting includes NYT reporting backing up a relationship between Willis and Wade based on an independent witness. I'd also like to present that you seemingly? agree with me that my edit's presentation of content matches RS ("taking the words directly from sources"), after previously claiming bias.
- Does your standard on "considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide" (mentioned below) apply for any of the people mentioned in the Fani Willis article's coverage of her electoral indictments, who are as of yet, unconvicted or sometimes not even indicted? Including Burt Jones, who a judge has explicitly blocked Willis from prosecuting? We have RS coverage of both Willis and Jones, including their own reporting, their own evidence gathering, their own analysis, etc. It makes perfect sense to me why Jones is included. It does not make sense why Willis, given similar if not more coverage, is not. In the talk page and here, you brought up inclusion dependent on judge's ruling. However, the judge in Jones' case ruled entirely for him and blocked Willis from prosecuting. I'm not seeing any consistent application of your standards. KiharaNoukan (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- BLP is not "my" standard, it's the standard we should all be following. Even the articles talking about the travel say Roman's attorney has not provided evidence, which I expect we'll see in the February 15 hearing. That they traveled together in and of itself means nothing. It would be a big deal if the judge rules that this is a conflict of interest. Adding the insinuations of impropriety on her part now is a BLP violation for all the reasons I shared below in my reply to Magnolia.
- While you're trying a whataboutism in how our BLPs treat the people Willis indicted, I will note that they were indicted. And the court process with Burt Jones has run its course. It has not with Willis and Wade. Willis has until February 2 to file her written response. We need to exhibit patience. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- What I'm doing is providing examples that we presumably both agree are due for inclusion to show why the mention of Willis & Wade is also valid for inclusion, so that we have something to ground us on the same page rather than just speaking past each other. I'm concerned that the haphazard citing of BLP policies you did below is indicative of that; among the policies you bring up include BLPPRIMARY is when all the cited sources are secondary (Magnolia just restored my old edit, which is entirely based on secondary RS). I'm not claiming that indictments are 1:1 the same thing as Willis-Wade (although my examples include unindicted people), only that inclusion of content related to judicial proceedings is clearly not incumbent on a judge's ruling.
- I agree that BLP is the standard we should all be following. Along with the examples from the Willis article, I can also provide the example mentioned in WP:BLPPUBLIC:
Example: A politician is alleged to have had an affair. It is denied, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. It should state only that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that the affair actually occurred.
Seems pretty apparent that the Willis-Wade revelations are this very textbook example. KiharaNoukan (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- While I may not specifically endorse the edits you reverted, I would note that what comes to including basic facts per PUBLICFIGURE, your unsubstantiated references BLPGOSSIP and NOTNEWS have zero relevance. Please study the policies you cite and you shall see it yourself. Your claim that there is
- There are enough sources to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE; however the level of detail about the allegations disrupted WP:BLPBALANCE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Absolutely true. This is a "meat and potato" case of including allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; Willis is a public figure, there are allegations that are noteworthy, hence it is clearly established that at least something should be included in the bio. I happened to take a stab at the bio by adding one relatively short paragraph. Now it is up to editorial discretion to determine how much content is DUE. Some of it cannot be done now, because the curtain is still open. The fact that there is also an article Georgia election racketeering prosecution where the allegations can be covered in-depth suggests that Willis's bio should only contain a short summary – at least for now. Politrukki (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Lemme quickly show the text that Politrukki added to Willis' bio a few hours ago that I just reverted:
On January 8, 2024, an attorney for Mike Roman, a defendant in the Georgia election racketeering prosecution case accused Willis of prosecutorial misconduct. According to the court filing, Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade (whom Willis hired for the case) had a romantic relationship, creating an improper conflict of interest. The filing asserts that Willis went on vacations with Wade and so Willis profited from hiring him; it cited sealed records for the divorce of Wade and his wife.[1][2]
These unsubstantiated allegations, sourced to court filings, violate BLP. They are alleging misconduct without the proof, which we have not seen, being adjudicated upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Lemme quickly show the text that Politrukki added to Willis' bio a few hours ago that I just reverted:
- Absolutely true. This is a "meat and potato" case of including allegations per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; Willis is a public figure, there are allegations that are noteworthy, hence it is clearly established that at least something should be included in the bio. I happened to take a stab at the bio by adding one relatively short paragraph. Now it is up to editorial discretion to determine how much content is DUE. Some of it cannot be done now, because the curtain is still open. The fact that there is also an article Georgia election racketeering prosecution where the allegations can be covered in-depth suggests that Willis's bio should only contain a short summary – at least for now. Politrukki (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- This is a case wether I think we should take a wait and see approach. A lot of accusations have been made but odds are good that what we would want to say about this a year from now will be different than what we would suggest today. These could be facts that kill her career but if proven false they may amount to just a footnote. There is no time limit. Springee (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I was of skeptical of adding something at first, but I've come around to think we need something (though I would note that the unsealed divorce papers didn't reveal much[3]. But not just anything: something that doesn't
just copy the claims over wholesale. Boil it down to a couple sentences at most, general language that the accusation was made and noting that it is currently just an accusation (leave the discussion of any evidence for Judge McAfee's courtroom) to which Willis has not yet officially responded (a speech at a church is not an official court document). As for sources, perhaps stick to Atlanta area outlets that understand the nuances of Georgia better than national ones, like the AJC or one of the local news TV affiliates, as long as it isn't just reupping something from the networks/wire services.
I think that strikes a nice balance. Paris1127 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)- Coverage has been widespread, and sources cited are reliable. Fani Willis is a public figure; readers would benefit from a paragraph about this topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- If "widespread coverage" and "reliable sources" were the only considerations, I'd agree with you. But they are not the only considerations, and considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: What specific part of WP:BLP leads you to conclude that? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm glad you asked.
- WP:BLPSTYLE:
BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement.
- WP:BLPBALANCE:
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all.
- WP:BLPPRIMARY:
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.
- WP:BLPGOSSIP:
Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.
- WP:BLPPRIVACY:
The standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified.
- When it comes to BLPBALANCE's "disinterested tone", I'm concerned with yours. You wrote one of the other editors who is pushing this content by saying Fani Willis is one of the
"mischievous Democrats"
and thatFani's poor judgment will unravel on the front page of every reliable source by the end of the week, and your edit will be in like the dirty shoe it is.
Let it be noted that even if she is dating someone she is working with, this is not necessarily an unacceptable conflict of interest. At least you advised them not to violate 1RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)- As we say here in Mississippi, you've been busier than a church fan in August, but a deeper read of each of those policies shows that few have much significance within the context of this article. The depth of coverage on this very public person is overwhelming. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- And there's the rub: the "depth of coverage" is all reliant on the court filings (see WP:BLPPRIMARY above), and mentions that
Roman’s filing included no concrete proof that Willis personally benefited from hiring Wade.
[13] If there's a "deeper read" of BLP to provide that overtakes that, I don't see it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)- We are only relying what reliable sources (many many of them) have reported. Isnt that what we do here? DarrellWinkler (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- And there's the rub: the "depth of coverage" is all reliant on the court filings (see WP:BLPPRIMARY above), and mentions that
- As we say here in Mississippi, you've been busier than a church fan in August, but a deeper read of each of those policies shows that few have much significance within the context of this article. The depth of coverage on this very public person is overwhelming. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu: What specific part of WP:BLP leads you to conclude that? Magnolia677 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- If "widespread coverage" and "reliable sources" were the only considerations, I'd agree with you. But they are not the only considerations, and considerable harm can be done to a BLP by alleging wrongdoing that only a court can decide. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
- Coverage has been widespread, and sources cited are reliable. Fani Willis is a public figure; readers would benefit from a paragraph about this topic. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
References
- ^ Hakim, Danny; Fausset, Richard (January 11, 2024). "Atlanta Prosecutor Faces Upheaval in Trump Inquiry". The New York Times.
- ^ Gardner, Amy; Bailey, Holly (January 18, 2024). "Judge in Trump Georgia case orders hearing on Fani Willis misconduct claims". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286.
a scheduled Jan. 31 hearing in Cobb County Superior Court over a motion to unseal records in Wade's divorce case. Merchant has said she believes records in that case will substantiate her allegations of wrongdoing by Willis and Wade.
- ^ Gringlas, Sam (22 January 2024). "Fate of Georgia election case unclear as prosecutors face growing scrutiny". WABE. Retrieved 23 January 2024.
An IP contributor is repeatedly ([14][15] [16]) adding a defamatory source about the subject (one which was deemed as unreliable at ptwiki) and being uncivil on the edit summary. DanGFSouza (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's more than incivility. It's an unsupported statement about the article subject. I've deleted the edit summaries. 2804:214:8625:CA00:0:0:0:0/64 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was already globally locked. Uncle G (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
James Renner
- James Renner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Something curious is up with the IP's interest in the article. First they deleted mention of Renner's termination from the Cleveland Scene. Now they're embellishing the account by claiming the Scene ran a news story it did not. More eyes on the situation would be helpful. —C.Fred (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- This one is a lot older than you think. Note the following:
- Special:Diff/315954202 where JamesRenner (talk · contribs) tried to get the firing of Renner into the Kevin Coughlin article in 2009.
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Kevin Coughlin from 2009
- Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive70#Kevin Coughlin from 2009
- Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#Request Block of JeffBillman from 2009
- Single-purpose account Able Cunningham (talk · contribs)
- Sockpuppeteer Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Renner3774 also edit warring over the firing of Renner and Maura Murray in 2020, but now in the James Renner article
- Single-purpose account CaraDino (talk · contribs) edit warring in the opposite direction over James Renner and Disappearance of Maura Murray
- Talk:Kevin Coughlin#James Renner, Kevin Coughlin, and the Akron Beacon Journal in 2009
- As you can see in particular from the latter, there have been problems with misrepresentation of sources over this one specific thing for 15 years. Cirt's and my protection of Kevin Coughlin for a fortnight and NinjaRobotPirate's protection of James Renner for a week seem incredibly optimistic in retrospect. Uncle G (talk) 12:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- One thing worth noting is that Commons:File:JamesRenner.jpg says that is a "
Publicity photograph I [ BjornNitmoe (talk · contribs) ] took for the back cover of Renner's novels."
NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)- Sharp eyes, there. I spotted the single-purpose account, but not the PR connection. Other single-purpose accounts over the years have included BjornNitmoe2 (talk · contribs) and AinsleyPHayes1 (talk · contribs). Uncle G (talk) 12:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Luis Elizondo
- Luis Elizondo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Multiple WP:RS have stated Elizondo was the former Director of the AATIP program.
- Washington Post[17]: Luis “Lue” Elizondo is the former director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program (AATIP), an unpublicized U.S. government program created in 2007 committed to the investigation of UAPs. Elizondo joins Jacqueline Alemany, author of the “Power Up” newsletter and congressional correspondent, on Tuesday, June 8 at 3:30pm ET.
- NY Times [18]: Luis Elizondo, the director of a Pentagon program she had never heard of: the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program.
- More NY Times[19]: For years, the program investigated reports of unidentified flying objects, according to Defense Department officials, interviews with program participants and records obtained by The New York Times. It was run by a military intelligence official, Luis Elizondo, on the fifth floor of the Pentagon’s C Ring, deep within the building’s maze.
- Politico [20]: According to a Pentagon official, the AATIP program was ended “in the 2012 time frame,” but it has recently attracted attention because of the resignation in early October of Luis Elizondo, the career intelligence officer who ran the initiative.
- CNN [21]: Luis Elizondo, the former Director of Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program at the Pentagon
- Representative Tim Burchett[22]: Elizondo is the former director of the Pentagon’s Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which was created in 2007 to study UAP.
- Former Senate Majority Leader Harry Ried[23]: As one of the original sponsors of AATIP, I can state as a matter of record Lue Elizondo’s involvement and leadership role in this program
I could go on with additional RS's but you get the gist.
His biography here at Wikipedia states that he is "Known for Claiming to be Director of the Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program". His leadership of AATIP being reported in such a skeptical language all based on one article in the Intercept.
Based on both BLP, and WP:WEIGHT the article should say Elizondo was the director of AATIP with the Intercept article being mentioned as a minority opinion .. if at all because it seems to be so WP:FRINGE given its weight.
Id like to hear people not involved with this topic to weigh in. THank you. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I suggest that people read your talk page first. Did you come here from the Reddit thread or perhaps the one on X? Doug Weller talk 22:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Neither, and I would politely ask you to Assume Good Faith on this issue. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I mean this Reddit UFO group [24] , can’t find the X thread again right now. Very hard to show good faith after having read that thread and knowing about the big attempt to dox User:LuckyLouie. See also WP:FTN# UFOlogy promoter BLPs. Goodnight. Doug Weller talk 22:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting I am involved in a campaign to dox an editor? I certainly hope you have something very concrete to corroborate that as its a pretty serous allegation. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's certainly not what he's known for, and shouldn't be presented in the infobox like that. Otherwise, I think the article covers the disagreement of sources reasonably. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "what he's known for". Do we need the qualifier on it when the vast majority of sources do not use it including the Senator who created AATIP as well as the Congressman who interviewed him. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, if there is disagreement in reliable sources we cover that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- In what proportion? I can cite dozens of reliable sources which state unequivocally that Elizondo was director of AATIP. Those attempting to present this as something which is disputed have The Intercept? Doesn't it appear that's a WP:Weight concern on a BLP? DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Interviews are not independent sources - news sources typically use the job title(s) given by the interviewee with minimal fact checking. Politicians are generally not considered to be great sources for factual claims either, to put it mildly. Sources that examine the issue in depth throw enough doubt on the issue that Wikipedia should not be uncritically taking the biography subject's side on this. MrOllie (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Most of these are not interviews and you said it yourself: they were fact checked to some extent. Harry Reid isn't a reliable source on who was the director of a classified program he created? DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, if there is disagreement in reliable sources we cover that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- This has nothing to do with "what he's known for". Do we need the qualifier on it when the vast majority of sources do not use it including the Senator who created AATIP as well as the Congressman who interviewed him. DarrellWinkler (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- Uninvolved BLPN watcher here. Never heard of this guy and don't really care about this dispute one way or the other. I can believe in the possibility of aliens and life in outer space, yet find it highly unlikely they'd spend the time, effort and energy it takes to travel billions of lightyears just to spin brodies in some cornfield in Nebraska. (With all the cool places in the universe, why come to this dump?) That said, here's my two cents.
- We don't just blindly follow what sources say. I can find a lot of sources that say any material can be used as a laser medium under the right conditions. When I check better sources written by laser experts, I can show quite clearly this is not true at all. When it comes to the reliability of sources and the weight (proportion) we give them, a lot depends on the type of source, but it also depends on the specific information it is giving. For example, a newspaper is generally at the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of RSs, whereas a book by a reputable publisher in laser physics would be far more reliable. In this case, we have newspapers that don't offer any proof, and others that source their info to what should be very reliable primary sources, depending on how much you believe politicians or Pentagon officials involved in counterintelligence. Either way, when there is a discrepancy we can't sort out, we have an obligation to phrase the article in a way that --in no way-- implies one is correct over the other. Let the reader decide. Now, if you have a better way to phrase it than using the word "claimed" which accomplishes that goal, then that might be a thing to discuss. Zaereth (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I think its a valid point to not reference this as definitive, however the conversation as previously framed prior to the article being locked was one of Elizondo being the only one who portrayed himself in that role, whereas link to the letter by Sen. Harry Reid (who was a part of the creation of AAWSAP), as well as the additional documents FOIA'd by "The Black Vault", at the very least the "claim" should be given equal weighting to the denials, rather than being seen as a "one man against the world".
- As the page is locked, I am unable to make the amendment, and given the existing baggage around that passage, it may be useful for a non-involved party to make such an amendment, however I would phrase it as follows:
- "Elizondo's has claimed to be a director of the now defunct Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, a program associated with the Pentagon UFO videos, is supported by former senator Harry Reid who was involved in setting up the program - this claim however has been contested by some reporters and Pentagon officials."
- This subtle wording changes from "both" to "some" implies that this not as easily disputed as the reader is lead to believe, and the additional context for who Harry Reid is adds legitimately adds weight as to why his claim should be given due merit. Webmaster2981 (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- We don't just blindly follow what sources say. I can find a lot of sources that say any material can be used as a laser medium under the right conditions. When I check better sources written by laser experts, I can show quite clearly this is not true at all. When it comes to the reliability of sources and the weight (proportion) we give them, a lot depends on the type of source, but it also depends on the specific information it is giving. For example, a newspaper is generally at the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of RSs, whereas a book by a reputable publisher in laser physics would be far more reliable. In this case, we have newspapers that don't offer any proof, and others that source their info to what should be very reliable primary sources, depending on how much you believe politicians or Pentagon officials involved in counterintelligence. Either way, when there is a discrepancy we can't sort out, we have an obligation to phrase the article in a way that --in no way-- implies one is correct over the other. Let the reader decide. Now, if you have a better way to phrase it than using the word "claimed" which accomplishes that goal, then that might be a thing to discuss. Zaereth (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- I've removed the coatrack-of-quotes criticism section, most of which didn't match sourcing, and emptied the known for parameter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's a somwhat weird situation. WaPo etc would normally be fine, but with the contradictory source(s?), what should be the WP:BALANCE is not glaringly obvious. In general, I would consider WaPo to have greater weight than The Intercept, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- It is a bit weird. On one hand we have Elizondo's claim being repeated by sources, on the other we have sources questioning that claim. I believe the current article represents an appropriate, reliable-source-based balance between those two poles: Elizondo's claim is included, as his claim. Alternatively, as mentioned above by SFR, Elizondo is not really known for that claim, so a better balance might be achieved by simply removing all information related to his specific role, claimed or otherwise, vis-a-vis AATIP. Perhaps WP:NORUSH also applies here: as additional, reliable sources emerge over time, this issue/content can always be revisited. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Those attempting to present this as something which is disputed have The Intercept?
and all based on one article
. No, there's more than one article, which for those interested can be read here. There is also this source, the sidebar of which presents a compelling case for questioning/disputing the "Directorship" claims. And there is also this source, which reports the fact that the Pentagon has questioned whether Elizondo had any official role in UFO research. The point here is that Elizondo's claimed role in the AATIP - which is certainly not what he is known for, and as pointed out above by MrOllie is derived from Elizondo himself - has been questioned in independent, reliable sources. Because of those reliable sources, if his claims are to be included at all in the article (and perhaps they should not), they can only be presented as his claims, and not as The Truth in Wikipedia's voice. I note lastly that this topic and these points have been discussed, at length, at the article Talk page, where consensus is not in favor of the OP's desired content. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- "Questioned", sure, but also reported as fact by independent, reliable sources (to which I'm not counting the senator). To me, it's not obviously clear that The Intercept has the final WP-voice-word here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
it's not obviously clear that The Intercept has the final WP-voice-word here.
Where precisely, in this discussion or at the article Talk page, does anyone suggest that? Perhaps I missed something, but I just don't understand the basis for this comment. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)- The article currently states "Elizondo claims that ending in 2012, he was the director..." While WaPo etc says he was. That gives The Intercept a top-dog position, in my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Let's replace "claim" by "state". It is not that extraordinary of a claim that someone like Reid would put someone like Elizondo in such a position. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The article currently states "Elizondo claims that ending in 2012, he was the director..." While WaPo etc says he was. That gives The Intercept a top-dog position, in my reading. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- The Washington Spectator uses the Intercept as its source on this and I shouldn't have to remind you that consensus doesn't allow us to violate Wikipedia's rules on BLP's. DarrellWinkler (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- It uses the Intercept article as a source, not the only source. And no one - no one - is arguing, either here or at the article Talk page, that consensus should violate BLP rules. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- You'll have to clearly explain how questioning a person's credentials is a BLP violation, especially when multiple reliable sources are doing so. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Todd Kashdan edits keep getting blocked. Not equal treatment between subjects
Todd Kashdan page edits that exist on other psychologists pages are being removed. Also, the page has factual inaccuracies that lead me to believe that the original posters of the material do not know the subject. Please compare his profile to that of Steve Hayes or other notable psychologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pem725 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, we don't compare 'profiles'. We base articles on what independent reliable sources have to say on the specific subject of the article. If you have an issue with content, discuss it on the article talk page, citing necessary sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Joaquin Phoenix
It repeatedly references Phoenix when it was meant to be Joaquin. I find this to be extremely egregious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.128.17 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- That's wikipedia style, to refer to article subjects by their last name. You can read more about it at MOS:SURNAME. Schazjmd (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it just more formal, that's all, and encyclopedias are written in a very formal style. It comes from an older time, for instance, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, when the US was new, it would've been considered very rude for even your best friends to call you by your first name even in light conversation. That was reserved for family alone. That's how most formal writing is still done. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'd note that this is still a very common practice in a lot of media, not just encyclopaedias. For example, People (magazine)'s [25] website does the same. People magazine's website given it's interest isn't generally considered a super serious website. Nil Einne (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's the style of many things other than Wikipedia, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it just more formal, that's all, and encyclopedias are written in a very formal style. It comes from an older time, for instance, back in the days of the Founding Fathers, when the US was new, it would've been considered very rude for even your best friends to call you by your first name even in light conversation. That was reserved for family alone. That's how most formal writing is still done. Zaereth (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi all--I need an editorial BLP opinion on this edit. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm leaning toward not including the conviction in this article--it's covered in Jacques Boyer. The COI is another matter. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Completely inappropriate guilt by association, in my view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed, although not mentioning his brother at all is also not the way forward. GiantSnowman 19:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- There are two things Jacques Boyer is known for. That is being a child molester and a bicycle racer. We tend not to cover something about someone having been accused, but per WP:BLP, including it is fine when there has been a conviction. To cherry pick and showcase only the flattering part of their siblings is POV pushing when multiple reliable sources have significant coverage on both aspects. Graywalls (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- User:Graywalls, I also read the BLP, and this may be the first time I disagree with you. Second paragraph: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives"--"your brother is a convicted child molester" is a pretty titillating claim, and I agree with User:ScottishFinnishRadish that inserting the fact (as well-referenced as it may be) in this article just isn't anything more than titillating. The guy was in the Tour? That doesn't harm this guy. The guy was convicted? That may harm this guy. Not all facts are equal in regard to the BLP. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump
Just a heads up about some article turbulence, in particular this edit of mine. I removed a word (widely considered an epithet in the diplomatic world) for reasons stated in edit summary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
- Following up, I have reverted the obvious BLP violation as much as I am going to revert it. Input here at BLPN would be helpful and welcome, and hopefully the BLP violation will be reverted in a stable manner. More generally, if neutral editors can tolerate it, such editors could be very beneficial to that high-traffic article/cesspool. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
What this non-neutral posting is in regards to is a discussion on whether to describe the subject as "isolationist," based on sources. The discussion is ongoing and has been up for a week. Despite the still ongoing discussion The OP here suddenly decided 2 days ago that it was a BLP violation, and edited the article according to their preferred version. This was reverted, user restored, reverted again, restored again. This violates the discretionary sanctions at the article, the "may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message" in particular. "Isolationist" can have a negative connotation, but it is not at all a BLP matter for the status quo to remain while discussed. Certainly not to the level of severity where user Anythingyouwant can bypass discretionary sanctions to remove it. Zaathras (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Pray tell what reliable source is cited in this BLP regarding whether he’s an “isolationist.” And why exclude Trump’s denial, and exclude every reputable historian who says he’s not an isolationist? You must realize it’s a flagrant BLP violation, right? The question here is whether BLP policy applies to this very disfavored BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- We're not litigating the discussion on this board. That is for Talk:Donald Trump. The issue here is you edit-warring, violating discretionary sanctions, and wrongly invoking BLP. Zaathras (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- It’s wrong to invoke BLP, is it? Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- But this isn't really the place to litigate discretionary sanctions either, nor for that matter edit-warring. That should be dealt with WP:ANEW, WP:ANI or WP:ARE. I have no comment whether this is a BLP issue, but bringing attention to BLP issues is what this board is for so that would be an appropriate use of this board. At the very least since this does involve not only a living person but is something said about that person
withoutwithin their biography, I'd be very reluctant to criticise an editor for bringing it here. This is separate from any edit-warring, discretionary sanctions violations etc which as I said should be dealt with elsewhere. Edit: Or to put it a different way, whatever wrongs the editor may or may not have made with their previous edits, if they felt there was a BLP issue it was surely wise for them to come here and see whether others agree rather than continue down that path. If they did stuff that needs to be dealt with, that can be dealt with elsewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) 12:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)- I'm aware that those issues won't be adjudicated here. They were mentioned to show the OP coming here with unclean hands. Zaathras (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- Anything to avoid addressing the BLP issues. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware that those issues won't be adjudicated here. They were mentioned to show the OP coming here with unclean hands. Zaathras (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
- We're not litigating the discussion on this board. That is for Talk:Donald Trump. The issue here is you edit-warring, violating discretionary sanctions, and wrongly invoking BLP. Zaathras (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
John Crist (comedian)
- John Crist (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A high profile "scandal" needs to be properly presented in this BLP that has needed basic cleanup for many years.
Here's a quote from the beginning of a recent article, to give an idea: The aftermath of the scandal that shook John Crist’s career has become part of his comedy, turning his lessons learned into new material and his experience with “cancel culture” into a punch line.
(Shellnutt, Kate (2022-06-20). "'Canceled' John Crist Has a New Book, Tour, and Comedy Special". Christianity Today.)
There are two new references on the talk page that may be useful.
I reverted a recent expansion/rewrite to be on the safe side of BLP, while editors give the situation the care it needs.
I don't expect to have much time to get this article up to BLP standards, nor review the general consensus on how to address MeToo-related articles. --Hipal (talk) 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Gary Allen (runner)
- Gary Allen (runner) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Back and forth between accounts adding controversial WP:BLP content and a likely COI account using Mr. Allen's name. Needs more eyes and perhaps some sanctions or page protection. Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- If an admin is about, I'd also suggest some rev/deletion of defamatory content. And it appears as if there's a more or less orchestrated campaign by several WP:SPAs to add promotional/positive content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am in the process of redacting BLP content not accompanied by a reliable source. ... discospinster talk 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, discospinster. If the single purpose accounts continue--from either direction--I may request page protection or go to ANI. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am in the process of redacting BLP content not accompanied by a reliable source. ... discospinster talk 18:18, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Cameron Stracher
- Cameron Stracher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Ct234567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I need some additional editor help with this article. I'm involved at the administrative level, which limits what I should be doing to the article content.
A cursory review of the New Yorker article used as sourcing shows that it backs up some of the chief claims made about Stracher and his firm. There is a use of the New York Post as a source which needs removed, although the information sourced to the Post is in the New Yorker article. The article needs additional work for tone.
Ct234567, holding himself out as Stracher (and who I've blocked for making legal threats), has attempted to blank the article on the grounds that it is "defamatory".[26] There one unsourced paragraph about a pending lawsuit that was removed; everything else on the surface is sourced, but it does need some vetting since the Post is used at least once as a source. —C.Fred (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
amin husain
Amin Husain The edits made to this page this week are based on unsubstantiated information, Amin husain has been unjustly suspended and an investigation is still taking place, and the information cited is based on a tabloid rag article (the ny post) with the intention to harm and defame. We ask that these edits are removed until actual verifiable data is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:863F:6942:E8EE:3FB:1513:F302 (talk) 22:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
- Question: Is Husain notable at all? I am seeing only low-quality sources here. The only reliable source I see in the article is a single ARTnews piece concerning the Decolonize This Place project. Other coverage of the project that I see on a cursory search mentions Husain in passing. Perhaps this should be a redirect to the project? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Woodroofe, I followed your suggestion--thank you. Yes that article is full of BLP problems. Oh, IP editor, don't speak in the plural here: it makes admins want to block. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Amin is a public figure cited in books and social movements and is an educator and activist a lawyer, as well as a lot of other things that are not derivative of his partial role in decolonize this place, so basically erasing him and just connecting him to decolonize this place minimizes and honestly feels like a lazy solution to making sure his wiki is updated with verifiable sources and data. Please remove the redirection. Sunkissed2024 (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- By email at ticket:2024013010011251 someone requested on-wiki discussion. If this is to be a redirect or deleted then please send to WP:AfD. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Woodroofe, I followed your suggestion--thank you. Yes that article is full of BLP problems. Oh, IP editor, don't speak in the plural here: it makes admins want to block. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Nancy Dudney
New start-class article Nancy Dudney on someone who very obviously passes WP:PROF (elected to National Academy of Engineering). Sourced mainly to non-independent sources because that's the kind of source that is useful for sourcing factual claims about people like that. There is nothing unreliable about the sources; we cannot use that kind of source for opinions but here they are only used for uncontroversial facts. Even the cv clearly passes WP:BLPSPS (it's by the subject and we're only using it for uncontroversial factual claims). There exist secondary sources but they mostly say useless things like world-renowned expert on batteries instead of useful things like career details. IP editor insists on tagging it with a permanent banner-of-shame telling the world that its sources are non-independent (and, incorrectly, characterizes the sources as primary; some of them are, at least one of them isn't, but it is non-independent) and has been edit-warring to reinstate that banner. Help wanted. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- This mischaracterizes things a little bit, but yes help is wanted. I hope we are not violating protocol here by jumping the queue so to speak. But if there are any specialists in finding secondary sources for academics your help would really be appreciated, I know a lot of those don't come up on normal searches, and I think the article is just begging for an interested specialist to help improve the sourcing and expand it from its current start-class, thanks to all. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's bad-faith assertion that I am not a specialist in sourcing articles on academics, after having created thousands of them, is also noted. Their condescending attitude is not helping me remain civil, which is also part of why I'm bringing this here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no condescension intended. Perhaps we need tone markers or something. I never said you were not a specialist, I only said we could use the help of specialists who might be additional or not, I made no assumptions there. Accusing me of bad-faith is weird. And no one is required to be a specialist to edit in the first place. Having specialists work on an issue just makes things a bit faster and more precise, but amateurs can muddle through things, projectspace is searchable so long as you have some idea what you are looking for (fourth-person you to be clear to avoid condescension interpretation) and the answers are usually somewhere. Even when things go awry all mistakes are reversible in a wiki. I don't understand what the problem here is. But that is ok because now that we are requesting outside attention hopefully someone who does understand everything will come along and clear everything up. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The fact remains that cleanup banners should be used only for articles where there is a problem to clean up. This article is not in a problematic state and putting it in a cleanup category is a waste of everyone's time, yours included. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- That still does not follow. To clarify, secondary sources are generally preferred and I do not believe that is a controversial claim. Maintenance categories are used by specialists/gnomes to find pages with issues that they like to address and are good at addressing and again that claim is uncontroversial. When thus categorized articles that would benefit from a specific task are more likely to be improved by virtue of being easier to find. Thus when the content of an article is mostly based on primary sources it is logical to add it to the maintenance category so it can receive additional attention from people who want to help, with the goal being to source most of the content from independent secondary sources.
- It does not waste anyone's time, because the people that use those categories are willingly choosing to use their time in that way, and it does not waste my time because I want to help them find pages in their area of specialization. Overall it should theoretically save time. Take for example Template:Uncategorized which I add rather routinely when applicable. I could add a category or two in many cases but my imprecision rate will be higher than someone who has dedicated much time to the study of Wikipedia's category tree, and I will also be slower. By asking for help a complete and correct set of categories is more likely to be added in one go by someone who takes essentially no time at all to select them, instead of one needing additions and refinement and thus the total editor-hours used will be lower.
- If instead I am misreading you, and your assertion is simply that having the majority of an article's content based on primary sources is never an issue that should be addressed by anyone I do not know what to tell you except that you are free to list Template:Primary at WP:TFD at any time. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:295F:37C6:A50D:14FD (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The fact remains that cleanup banners should be used only for articles where there is a problem to clean up. This article is not in a problematic state and putting it in a cleanup category is a waste of everyone's time, yours included. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- There is no condescension intended. Perhaps we need tone markers or something. I never said you were not a specialist, I only said we could use the help of specialists who might be additional or not, I made no assumptions there. Accusing me of bad-faith is weird. And no one is required to be a specialist to edit in the first place. Having specialists work on an issue just makes things a bit faster and more precise, but amateurs can muddle through things, projectspace is searchable so long as you have some idea what you are looking for (fourth-person you to be clear to avoid condescension interpretation) and the answers are usually somewhere. Even when things go awry all mistakes are reversible in a wiki. I don't understand what the problem here is. But that is ok because now that we are requesting outside attention hopefully someone who does understand everything will come along and clear everything up. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:78EA:9B86:3096:3798 (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- The IP's bad-faith assertion that I am not a specialist in sourcing articles on academics, after having created thousands of them, is also noted. Their condescending attitude is not helping me remain civil, which is also part of why I'm bringing this here. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Nancy MacLean
A newly created SPA has shown up on the Nancy MacLean article to push the claim that she's a conspiracy theorist, which has seen disruptive editing pushing that going back for a while, though not recently until now. Their account name, @DemocracyInCranes:, is a parody on the title of one of MacLean's books. They added to the lede the claim alongside a REFBOMB of mostly libertarian responses to said book, which is about the origins of United States libertarianism (in a not positive way).
I reverted the editor a couple times until @William M. Connolley: reverted me back and has stated they don't consider this to be a BLP violation. The only thing I did then was move down the claim to the section about the book in question. DemocracyInCranes has since added the American Conspiracy Theorists category to the article.
I would like the input of other editors on whether these additions are a BLP violation or not, with my username links above serving as pings to the two editors in question. SilverserenC 22:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced it's a BLP violation. But I do see a disputed edit that has been added back to the article without any discussion on the talk page, by a longstanding editor who you'd think would know better. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Characterizing her critics as "some academic critics, many of them libertarians" appears to be incorrect. Maybe more accurate would be "many libertarians, some of whom are academics". We should avoid representing her critics as being more mainstream than they are. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Iqbal Survé
Iqbal Survé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I don't know what's happening with this article but there appears to be WP:BLP issues. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Long story. The subject of the article can be seen as a controversial figure. There's a history of COI editing on this page by single-purpose accounts associated with the subject of the article, editing positively about him. This has usually ended with them being blocked as sockpuppets. The most recent spate of edits started from the other "side" - single-purpose accounts editing negatively about the subject - and now a single-purpose account has joined in, editing in favour of the subject. Zaian (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Evgeniya Kanaeva
False data in the article:
According to Kanaeva's biography on olympics.com, she was born in Omsk (Soviet Union), not Anyang, Gyeonggi-do, Korea as mentioned in the article. https://olympics.com/en/athletes/evgeniya-kanaeva
Furthermore, the article includes several Korean place names, such as "Suwon" and "Anyang", which is strange because Kanaeva is a Russian athlete.
I kindly request a careful review and verification of the information provided in the article. Thank you for your attention to this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tata2906 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- An IP editor from Korea made a series of changes without explanation back in November which changed many of the placenames in the article from Siberian to Korean ones; I have reverted. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)