Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard | ||
---|---|---|
This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.
Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.
Additional notes:
| ||
To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below: |
Nikocado Avocado
This article is mostly false, and has been translated in multiple languages it seems. He's a YouTuber who has crafted a trainwreck persona for views, and therefore what he says about himself is unreliable. It's obvious enough watching his videos, but he also brags about making it all up. The article cites low-grade journalism pieces that source his own videos as fact (again, it's not reliable) or what he's told the journalist (with no fact checking). It's locked, so I can't edit it. --Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to discussion of the specific problems you identified: Talk:Nikocado Avocado#Accuracy? Endwise (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Which specific assertions and sources are you disputing? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Also not clear on which assertions you are disputing. Upon initial glance, the page appears reliably sourced but happy to do some digging if you are able to provide specifics. Meatsgains(talk) 00:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here's one:
- "On September 18, 2021, Perry stated that he had fractured his ribs, while sneezing. A doctor's diagnosis showed that he had broken three of his left ribs."
- There's a footnote to a Business Insider article, which just reports what he said in a video. "In a follow-up video, 'My diagnosis has arrived,' he said that he had broken three ribs on his left side and that he was taking steroids and other medications." Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
- Nevermind. It's been changed now. If I can withdraw this notice, I'll do that. It seems like most of what can be addressed, has been. Thanks to the editors who helped. Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- There continue to be recurring BLP issues at this article and more eyes would be appreciated. One ongoing concern is how to summarize a conflict Nikocado Avocado got into with another YouTuber. In the aftermath, he claimed that the whole thing was faked for views. There's now an editing dispute about whether we should say that he "claimed" this or "revealed" this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- What has he done to be trustworthy, ever? He has a pattern of this behavior going back to his vegan youtubing days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVDLNkRrX3Y). If the Stephanie Soo thing is encyclopedic, then that controversy probably is too. In recent videos he's also been talking about the Amber Heard trial, and what a liar she is, and how we shouldn't "believe all women." More than once he loops this rant into "I had this happen to me with a certain Youtuber." If they planned it for publicity (as he's claimed), then why would he be mad about it? (Redacted) Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Angana P. Chatterji
Various editors have continuously attempted to connect a controversial individual to the subject of this article via tenuous links in 2011 over the years, and I don't want to get into an edit war. Other eyes appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igarashi.torren (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Igarashi.torren was previously reminded on the Angana Chatterji Talk page against making dubious edits. Igarashi.torren has also previously declared a conflict of interest in relation to the topic. Prime facie it appears that Igarashi.torren is trying to block important factual information about Chaterji. Chaterji's association with Ghulam Nabi Fai (convicted by a US court) is extremely noteworthy and widely reported by reputable media organisations. See link below. Furthermore, Igarashi.torren is also deleting the official reason stated for Chatterji's dismissal, i.e. falsifying grades etc. Thus, Igarashi.torren's edits must be undone and Igarashi.torren must be given another admonition in addition to that given earlier.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/the-man-behind-pakistani-spy-agencys-plot-to-influence-washington/246000/ https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-isi-vetted-indians-on-ghulam-nabi-fai-list-of-invitees-1576089 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20110801-us-based-isi-agent-ghulam-nabi-fai-746997-2011-07-22 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow_comments/9340663.cms?from=mdr
Tatsuro22 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
More eyes please! Tatsuro's reading of the Atlantic article is incorrect, especially around finances and constitutes BLP violation. Also: a conference attended by many people more than 10 years ago is not noteworthy and seems like a tenuous way to link to someone controversial, something other editors have tried to do in the past and seems like a long-running campaign. Thank you for any help. Torren (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Halp. Continued BLP violation via a bad misreading of the 10-year old Atlantic article, on a tenuous connection which I do not believe is noteworthy. More eyes appreciated! Thank you. Torren (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_McKellow
Mr Mckellow was my uncle and I have been advised that he died on 30 April 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.140.19 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
rule of thumb on serial murders?
I keep seeing articles about serial murders at WP:PNT. I am extremely uninterested but the one I just looked at definitely was/is bad machine translation, albeit mostly understandable. (I got some of the low-hanging fruit as I was reading). Anyway, without doing a deep dive, the sourcing is -- meh. Analogous to what one might have seen for the Central Park Five. Mainstream rather sensational news. Do we even need these articles? People tend to come and yell at me about the things I translate, so I dislike doing this for articles I find pointless to begin with. I've been ignoring them for quite a long time and would like to find a reason to delete them, frankly. It's quite clear nobody else is going to fix them, and I also have notability questions. Can we find out who is fixated on these murders and ask them why? Suggestions welcome Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- The one I just looked at was Nadir Sedrati but I have seen several others, which all seem to be about members of minority groups, coincidentally. Elinruby (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd have to suggest that the 'rule of thumb' for translated articles about serial murderers would be not to touch them with a bargepole unless there was clear and unambiguous credible sourcing, given the obvious WP:BLP concerns. We have enough problems with WP:BLP violations as it is (a surprising number of contributors seem to think that being charged with something is evidence of guilt, for a start, as is evident from the numerous 'List of...' articles we have on the subject...) and given the lax standards I've seen on some (not all) non-English Wikipedias we surely can't always expect them to conform to our standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Awesome, I feel validated. But the fact that they languish on PNT doesn’t keep them from existing; they are just tagged as rough translations. Should I add BLP and notability tags? AfD? Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any article that appears to label a named living individual as a serial murderer, without the necessary sourcing, would fall under WP:BLPREMOVE - which is to say any identifying information, and quite possibly even claims that murders had actually taken place, would need immediate removal. Which would quite possibly imply speedy deletion, if the individual is named in the title, as is often the case. We cannot continue to host articles containing gross violations of WP:BLP policy once they become apparent. If people want articles on such subjects, the onus is on them to provide the necessary sources first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here, here! (Clap, clap, clap) Zaereth (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I’m on board, believe me, esp since I suspect xenophobia. I have never done a speedy deletion though, so I may have specific questions. But as far as the translation part is concerned, they are not doing anything but clogging up the queue. And possibly some of them are bad enough for that to be an additional reason, come to think of it. Thanks, y’all. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Here, here! (Clap, clap, clap) Zaereth (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Any article that appears to label a named living individual as a serial murderer, without the necessary sourcing, would fall under WP:BLPREMOVE - which is to say any identifying information, and quite possibly even claims that murders had actually taken place, would need immediate removal. Which would quite possibly imply speedy deletion, if the individual is named in the title, as is often the case. We cannot continue to host articles containing gross violations of WP:BLP policy once they become apparent. If people want articles on such subjects, the onus is on them to provide the necessary sources first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Awesome, I feel validated. But the fact that they languish on PNT doesn’t keep them from existing; they are just tagged as rough translations. Should I add BLP and notability tags? AfD? Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
I prodded three of these articles last night. This required notifying the original author, Haunted Spy, who has now rewritten Nadir Sedrati and most likely the other two as well. The article is now in good English, which solves *my* immediate issue with it, but I don’t think the issues of lightly sourced BLP and failing WP:CRIME are addressed. I do see one respectable if somewhat sensationalist source (Libération) and some references to what might be an ok regional paper that I don’t know, and the references to a TV guide are gone, but replaced by the show itself, which will be difficult to verify. I am pretty sure there are still BLP violations, including speculation about the subject’s responsibility for murders for which he was not charged. The author’s user page says that serial killers is all he does, so there could be a lot of articles like this, and I just don’t see why we need them. These were sordid if particularly gory murders. It isn’t clear to me that they meet notability let alone BLP criteria for the English Wikipedia, and I would like somebody else to take a look. I am willing to look into this regional newspaper if it would help, but I think the lack of coverage in even French national press speaks to the subject’s notability. Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Louis Poirson
Is this sufficiently cited? Notable? Le Nouvel Observateur is usually considered reliable. Liberation, opinionated but often accurate, like a less famous Rolling Stone perhaps. Le Parisien has an illustrious history but seems to have become a tabloid like the Daily Mail or the NY Post. I am not sure about the local paper but I have notability questions if that is the deciding factor. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I think there's enough there to show they are notable and more sources are likely available. Serial killers generally get a pretty fair amount of coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am in this because these French serial killers are bad machine translations that are piling up in the WP:PNT French queue that only I ever work on, as far as I can tell. I am profoundly uninterested and question their notability as somebody who has lived in France. They might meet a threshold of notability for the French wikipedia, where readers would care about a crime in their backyards, presumably. But color me not interested in somebody who killed some hitchhikers in southern France in 1990 or whatever. Not going to put the time into fixing it when there is lots to do in Algerian and Congolese history that is in the end much much more important. It's simple triage. Not going to look for sources or fix it, and neither is the author apparently. Unless maybe I AfD each of these individually Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Notability is independent of language, and we don't need English language sources. Machine translations are a problem though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- To be clear, I am in this because these French serial killers are bad machine translations that are piling up in the WP:PNT French queue that only I ever work on, as far as I can tell. I am profoundly uninterested and question their notability as somebody who has lived in France. They might meet a threshold of notability for the French wikipedia, where readers would care about a crime in their backyards, presumably. But color me not interested in somebody who killed some hitchhikers in southern France in 1990 or whatever. Not going to put the time into fixing it when there is lots to do in Algerian and Congolese history that is in the end much much more important. It's simple triage. Not going to look for sources or fix it, and neither is the author apparently. Unless maybe I AfD each of these individually Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you there, actually, as somebody who frequently works with foreign language sources and frequently has to defend them. However, context also matters, no? People care a lot more about serial murders that are not in another country. So I am positing that while he might as a French serial murder be notable in France, this doesn't necessarily extend to notability on the English wikipedia. I AfD'd the article mentioned above, btw, and the editor improved the English (but it took AfD for that to happen), and yet that article still accuses the subject of murders he was not convicted of, just for a start. The sourcing is now if anything a little worse than in this article. And I must admit that I find it a little disturbing that somebody is collating this stuff. I mean, I have read Truman Capote, and I get the interest to a point, but is this what Wikipedia is for? Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate, but serial killers are one of those things that attracts attention, which means stories and documentaries and articles, which means notability. I don't have the time to do a real once over on the article right now, but I'll try to get around to removing the BLPvio when I have the time, and take a look at the AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- the editor deleted the tags. All of them. This does get the articles out of the WP:PNT French queue, which was my particular issue with them, and finding out that there are a lot more of these articles, but although I don't usually swim in these waters, I think there are unaddressed BLP and notability issues. I am quite happy to leave the matter in your hands though; as I said I am very extremely not interested, and there is machine translation out there that *should* be rescued and imho would be a better use of my time. Elinruby (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's unfortunate, but serial killers are one of those things that attracts attention, which means stories and documentaries and articles, which means notability. I don't have the time to do a real once over on the article right now, but I'll try to get around to removing the BLPvio when I have the time, and take a look at the AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- It's an extremely bad-looking WP:BLP. If it's a notable topic, fine, but all uncited text should be nuked and only be added back with BLP-acceptable refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Odumeje
Odumeje (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above article, a (purported) biography about a living individual, a Nigerian clergyman, has recently been mentioned at WP:ANI (see [1] - permanent link [2]). Discussions regarding the article creator are probably best dealt with there, but meanwhile it would seem advisable to do something about the blatant violations of WP:BLP policy found in the article, since it clearly needs editing - with a nice sharp axe.
As a flavour of the issues, see the section entitled Threat to kill anyone writing negative things about him
, which tells readers that Odumeje claimed he had spiritual powers and would kill anyone who wrote anything negative about him no matter how much they concealed their identity, he claimed he could spiritually tell who they were and would proceed to kill them spiritually.
The sole source cited for this allegation being Opera News [3]. Opera News describes itself as "a completely localised and personalised news app", one that delivers "AI-curated content according to your interests". [4] The website, whatever it is, clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, and the article being cited for the Odumeje 'biography' is written in broken English by one 'Semiemmy2 (self media writer)', whatever that is supposed to mean. At a guess, I's suggest it probably means 'some random dude on the internet pretending to be a journalist'.
I'm tempted to deal with the problem myself, but given my involvement with the ANI discussions should probably leave it to others to sort out, provided it is dealt with promptly. If I was to edit it, I strongly suspect that the end result would be an article consisting entirely of a statement that 'Odumeje is a Nigerian clergyman [citation needed]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- I have done some work here, with a ceremonial axe. Possibly more to come, there is "one" decent source....but it's late, now. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 03:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Robert Sarver
The Philanthropic and advocacy work reads a lot like a self-written exercise for good PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.6.142 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Much of the section has now been removed since they were without independent RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Vicki Iseman and the John McCain lobbyist controversy revisited
I have discussed this today with a few editors personally but think it might be wise to put this on Wikipedia's radar. Over 14 years ago the New York Times wrote an article which seemed to imply Senator John McCain (at the time the leading Republican party presidential nominee candidate) was involved in some way with a female DC lobbyist. At the time an affair was implied in the NYT but not so stated, the focus of the article concerning the special working relationship between them. Wikipedia started covering this as the sources came out (in the middle of the night, as memory serves). We excised the controversy from the the BLP, creating the current controversy page, but at AfD the Iseman article ultimately was overturned/kept in order to provide the subject positive coverage to balance the exclusively negative material alleged in the controversy page. I'm certainly not entertaining notions of re-litigating those processes. After Iseman sued the Times, the two parties settled with no money changing hands. A representative of the New York Times actually posted a statement on our article talk page, a step I've not often seen from an involved RS.
At the controversy page, two AFDs
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy (keep; 2/2008)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 (keep; 1/2009)
At the Iseman page two AFDs and two DRVs
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (no consensus, 2/2008)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 1 (endorsed, 3/2008)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination) (delete, 4/2008)
- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4 (overturned, 5/2008)
Today an involved party, Steve Schmidt (in a Substack post) has confessed to being aware of and complicit in the coverup of the affair, which is jaw-dropping news. Schmidt is one of the people most recently falsely accused of pedophilia (this time by Megan McCain) and after a twitter war between the two, he posted this confession, excoriating and insulting McCain. In posts to two admins I've requested adding the pages to watchlists. Since this controversy has all the elements of great personality bashing (sex, politics, journalism, resentment, and a former The View panelist), I expect MSNBC to cover it tonight and everyone else to cover the coverage tomorrow. So far I'm seeing the NYMag and Salon move forward but the bigs are waiting or still writing. I'm not calling for any action as of this date stamp, but thought it might be wise to raise general awareness before these articles are mentioned in media (as I've seen already once today) and before the influx of partisans starts to relitigate it themselves, as have already started. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- New movie with Woody Harrelson, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Mike Crapo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Crapo
It is so obvious that the selection of details about Mr. Crapo included in this article are design to paint him in a less than favorable light. I would suggest that it be edited to include only general information about his origins, education, family life, etc. All of the political stuff and the inclusion of his DUI arrest are obvious character assassination attempts. If a political history is to be included, it should be comprehensive and not cherry-picked as is currently the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayniack (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- All of the political stuff in an article about a US Senator? What are the specific concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've condensed the Drunk driving arrest section as it was previously a bit lengthy. Meatsgains(talk) 15:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but IMO it should be condensed even further: It probably warrants no more than 2 sentences. Wikipedians tend to be terrible at distinguishing verifiability from encyclopedic noteworthiness, not understanding WP:PROPORTION or WP:RECENTISM. It's worse with politicians: see also Jeffrey Wood, whom apparently, per Wikipedia, has done absolutely nothing of note besides go to college, get married, and drive while intoxicated more than once. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Animalparty, has Wood done anything else of note?[5] Fences&Windows 08:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but IMO it should be condensed even further: It probably warrants no more than 2 sentences. Wikipedians tend to be terrible at distinguishing verifiability from encyclopedic noteworthiness, not understanding WP:PROPORTION or WP:RECENTISM. It's worse with politicians: see also Jeffrey Wood, whom apparently, per Wikipedia, has done absolutely nothing of note besides go to college, get married, and drive while intoxicated more than once. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Themis Prodromakis
New article has been drafted here by an editor at University of Edinburgh. Have been advised of this and informed the editor that this will need Conflict of Interest review. They are a new editor and were not aware of the COI guidelines, or the WP:GNG guidelines for that matter. In any case have advised them that the article needs citations throughout and wiki links and to comply with COI and WP:GNG. As I myself am employed by the university, I want to be very transparent here about the article and recuse myself from any further involvement in favour of more independent COI/GNG review. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Age fabrication
Overwhelming amount of unreferenced WP:BLP information. Rewrite, or AfD perhaps? --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I removed some of the most obvious problems. Probably does need a rewrite, as it stands now it's basically List of people who misrepresented their age at some point in time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- I'd say delete. Other than Wikipedia and sites mirroring Wikipedia, I find no good, reliable source that uses nor gives any definition of the term "age fabrication". "Age hardening", yes, but nothing from any books, news, scientific or psychological journals, or reputable websites. Zip. This is pure OR and synth. Zaereth (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at a possible AfD, I see some merging possibilities. At the top of the Age_fabrication#Sports section, there are links to four articles or article subsections:
- Age requirements in gymnastics#Age falsification in Age requirements in gymnastics ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Age fraud in association football ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Figure skating#Age eligibility in Figure skating ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Cheating in baseball#Age fabrication in Cheating in baseball ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- These appear considerably better referenced than the Age fabrication article. If there's related content in Age fabrication not in these related articles, then it should be merged regardless, as Age fabrication should be summarizing only. --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- There is probably a lot of salvageable info there. The lede is pure OR. It's a made-up term by the author, and we can't have an article on a term we made up. That would be name fabrication. (See what I did there?) The term is awkward, because it implies something entirely different. "Fabrication" is most commonly synonymous with construction. That's why when I first saw it I was thinking, "How can you build something using age?" It comes off as nonsensical. Now, "age falsification" may be a different story. That's clear and may possibly have some sources out there.
- But that brings us to the next problem. Such an article should be notable enough to make a decent article that is something better than a dictionary definition. Like age hardening, we should have a lot of very good sources in my opinion. And we should use examples found in those sources, and not make it a place to name everybody we thinkm, personally, should be used as an example.
- The rest of it should go into the articles of each individual subject, NPOV withstanding, where it can be properly weighed and balanced with the rest of the respective article. This is, after all, information on living people, and list articles shouldn't be used to circumvent due weight in my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- Looking at a possible AfD, I see some merging possibilities. At the top of the Age_fabrication#Sports section, there are links to four articles or article subsections:
- I'd say delete. Other than Wikipedia and sites mirroring Wikipedia, I find no good, reliable source that uses nor gives any definition of the term "age fabrication". "Age hardening", yes, but nothing from any books, news, scientific or psychological journals, or reputable websites. Zip. This is pure OR and synth. Zaereth (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
This started out with a slang name age fudging and was renamed in 2005. When talking about enlisting in World War One (and three prior wars, not even mentioned in this article), the U.S. Congress used the word "misrepresentation". There do exist biographies and suchlike that use "fudge" and "fabricate", and this is a perfectly acceptable sense of the word "fabrication". Of course the article doesn't mention Florence during the Mediaeval period, either. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Maryanne Demasi
Maryanne Demasi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article has been tagged since 2016 with {{Undue weight}}, and concerns have been raised on the talk page that nearly the entire article is centered on negative reception of two episodes of Catalyst (TV program). While no doubt these episodes were controversial and received press coverage, is the structure and tone of the current article acceptable per WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, etc.? Does the subject even warrant a distinct biography, or merely perhaps a redirect to Catalyst (TV program)? I'm not advocating for white-washing, but I believe the the opposite of white-washing is shit-piling: taking only the most titillating and controversial aspects of a subject, and downplaying or ignoring other coverage. And even if an individual happened to be somehow be independently notable only and entirely for 2 controversial TV episodes, I think there are much better ways to write and structure such an article. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I suggest trimming the article back to focus on the person rather than the Catalyst shows, and also trim back anything that's not covered by independent sources to avoid acting as a soapbox for her or her critics.
- The Catalyst (TV program) article appears to cover the controversy about the shows in enough detail. --Hipal (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
RingID
There's been a slow-burning edit war at this orphan article since it was first brought to my attention in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Benjamin.Olivier/Archive, between one editor with a clear COI in favor of the subject, and a number with apparent POVs against (although I'd hesitate to assume COI). After the COI editor, Isaaceldon76, finally escalated to legal threats, I blocked indefinitely both for NLT and UPE. However, keeping DOLT in mind, I'm aware that there's content in the article that reflects poorly on living people, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the quality of South Asian tech industry sources to assess their reliability, so I bring the matter here for review.
Also, I know this isn't AN, but since I have an audience: My past edits to this article have been in that gray area between administrative and content, removing promotional edits in one direction and BLPvio in the other. I felt that they landed far enough on the administrative side of that area that it was acceptable for me to block, but I welcome any critique. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 15:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BLPCRIME is indeed an issue and it looks like Firefangledfeathers addressed it by removing their explicit identities,[6] but I'm not sure if the remaining detail is still too excessive under the policy. It should focus on the company rather than what happened to the people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Mondo
Someone change the name from: Brad Gesimondo, commonly known as Brad Mondo to: Brek Gesimondo, commonly known as Brad Mondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.133.146 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
- I've reverted the vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Wayne Siegel
Ran across this BLP article Wayne Siegel. Initially I was going to place a simple unreferenced header tag; but then thought perhaps the article itself might warrant an AfD nom since I could not find reason for inclusion even under general notability. Does this line: "awarded a three-year grant in composition from the Danish Art Council" meet with WP guidelines for WP:MUSICBIO? Tried searching online for other notable mentions. Maineartists (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Mr. Bond (musician)
Mr. Bond (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Austrian data protection and privacy laws do not allow the full name of accused to be revealed in Austrian legal system, especially if they have not been convicted or sentenced yet. There is no verdict yet either. The press reports that the identity of the captive alleged to be Mr. Bond was doxxed by means not conform to Austrian Data Protection Act. Please remove the defamatory article about this individual. [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weimaren (talk • contribs)
- I've done some cleaning up, and I expect there needs to be another comb through. I also think it's quite likely that this article wouldn't pass WP:BLP1E. More eyes would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Tamzin did some revdels, and got oversight involved. I think the article is ok now, but I plan on looking into an AfD tomorrow. Thanks Tamzin and unidentified oversighter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, while the article had only mentioned this in the infobox previously, Bond was convicted and sentenced, and I've clarified this with a source that was already in the article. Also, obligatory reminders that: 1) Austrian law doesn't decide what is published on Wikipedia, nor does any legal system except those the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to, and 2) "defamation" is not a synonym for "unflattering content"; if someone is a neo-Nazi, we're allowed to call them a neo-Nazi. But yeah, that said, under our own policies there weren't reliable sources giving his full name, so that's been oversighted. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 01:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Trolling by likely sock of banned user. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- He's named by the reputable Counter Extremism Project, which we use as a source in 22 existing articles.[11] Fences&Windows 22:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
Likewise. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 08:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
- As the Oversighter who suppressed the inclusion of his name in the article and who got a second opinion from another oversighter, I'd suggest a single source (even if RS) is insufficient to overcome the fact that overwhelmingly RS, even those post-conviction, are not using his full name and thus the name would, to quote from WP:OSPOL, continue to be an example of a
pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- As the Oversighter who suppressed the inclusion of his name in the article and who got a second opinion from another oversighter, I'd suggest a single source (even if RS) is insufficient to overcome the fact that overwhelmingly RS, even those post-conviction, are not using his full name and thus the name would, to quote from WP:OSPOL, continue to be an example of a
Seema Verma
I am requesting help to make the article Seema Verma conform to BLP and NPOV. For some time editors have been warring over this. When I first edited it in Dec 2021, the article was basically a political hit job, as noted by User:Marquardtika, who placed a NPOV tag on it in November, but the tag was removed without any discussion. I have re-inserted the tag today, and asked (again) for a discussion. I should point out that one criticism of my edits I agreed with, and changed the article to reflect it (re her tenure length). My last post, captured in the version [here] updates the bio and adds non-disputed, non-controversial material and balance. My article includes a lengthy section on criticisms, which I think drones on and on and is still not NPOV. Unfortunately, political bias is likely at play here. For example, mentioning in the opening paragraph that Verma okpposed ACA is a throwaway line, since that was the official posiiton of the administratation. For a comparison, check out Alex Azar, for whom Verma worked. His wiki bio looks NPOV and balanced, and doesn't criticize him for opposing the ACA in the opening paragraph. Here is the [talk page discussion]. Thanks for looking into this.W21040tx (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Seema Verma ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- There are some poor references. I removed some rather blatant promotion and soapboxing.
- It's not clear what NPOV problems there are, as the references overall look very good. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- There's been further cleanup by Morbidthoughts
- Partial protection might help given the ip editing going on. --Hipal (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Mark Thomas
I want to check about how to handle information on Mark Thomas' marriage. A tweet I won't link for BLP reasons to led me to his bio, where I found that in January an account named User:Mark Thomas comedian added his wife, marriage year, end of marriage year, and increased his number of children by one. I have username softblocked that account. I have verified his wife's name and their year of marriage, but not the different number of children or the end of the marriage. Should the unverifiable information be revdelled, if nobody else can verify it? Fences&Windows 17:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
- Fences and windows, in my opinion, an unreferenced assertion that somebody has "X" children should just be reverted and that revdelling something so banal is not necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- That diff does not show anything being added about the wife, which was in fact added in Special:Diff/932117465 by a completely different account over a year before. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- Right, I was being dim when looked at that diff. Yikes, our standards are pretty shoddy when such unsourced additions are overlooked for so long. To spell out my concern, though I believe he was divorced it's not verifiable, but more importantly adding a child in those circumstances has negative implications. I'm fine to just leave it if no-one else has concerns. Fences&Windows 11:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Unsourced BLP: Randy West
I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at Randy West. As it stands, it's a BLP sourced entirely to what seems to be a fan site. A quick skim through Newspapers and ProQuest yielded next to nothing in terms of sources. I would like to see the article improved, but I have to admit a dash of COI as I'm Facebook friends with him. Would anyone else be able to find something I can't? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
- There isn't that much. There's no decent biography that I can find, just the odd credit or mention in various books, such as other people's biographies or books about television shows. Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Volodymyr Zelenskyy
I think this page needs some attention because one of users just made this posting about "Neo-Nazi". This content is based on unreliable sources. Note that the first reference in the posting by the user ([1]) is actually a copy from RT (TV network) as shown at the bottom of the linked page. The user is currently editing the BLP page to include various information that is not necessarily due. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
2022 Buffalo mass shooting
Need eyes on this article for any number of reasons, BLP being a prominent one. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Amanda Tenfjord
Amanda Tenfjord ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Amanda Tenfjord is subject to repeated edits from at least 2 users (Honestbro.32 and Panos3456) to change her birth place to Greece based on unreliable sources. Neither of them are responding to comments made on their Talk pages. They are citing Greek newspapers and a greek talk show where she promotes her entry in the Eurovision contest. She says she was born in Greece in the video, but that can be to simply avoid having to explain that her Norwegian mother gave birth to her in Norway shortly before moving to Greece to be with the greek father. I have found newer Norwegian news articles where it's stated that she was born in Norway.
The article is already reliably sourced with a reference to a Norwegian hospital record about the birth from a local Norwegian newspaper from 1997. This is stored digitally in the database of the National Library of Norway, and I have confirmed that the information is there. I can send/share the file if needed. Kimern9 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
List of scientific misconduct incidents
- List of scientific misconduct incidents ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a misleading article which violates the living persons policy.
There are statements that indicate a specific person committed scientific misconduct, yet in many cases, it was not the person listed, but an employee. The maximum one can claim here is that it happened in the group of. Also in many cases (not all), the person listed here actually self reported when they found out that a member of the team had committed misconduct. They also withdrew the manuscript. Note also that the whole story is not always wrong, but one experiment may be forged by the employee (technician, student, postdoc). It is highly unfair and also misconduct in the true sense of the word to not distinguish between cases where misconduct occurred in a lab and all proper measures were taken, and those where the PI systematically conducted fraud. as may have possibly been done in this case www.science.org/content/article/task-force-uncovers-abundant-fraud-german-lab Also note that in science, fraud will be uncovered, since the knowledge building is placed upon other peoples findings, if the basis is wrong, the issue will be traced and corrected, on the way fraud will be uncovered.
The article should be removed or thoroughly researched and classified into cases where a person who is listed is not falsely accused as done here!
An example of poor research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfromm (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- At a glance, there's enough that looks questionable in the article that a careful review is needed. --Hipal (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- Courtesy link to previous related discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- By the looks of Special:Diff/1054081173/1054410078 and Talk:List of scientific misconduct incidents#Trimming, JoJo Anthrax should be aware of this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
BIKRAM SHAHI
We have neither a BIKRAM SHAHI nor a Bikram Shahi article, and this notice is just non-actionable gibberish anyway. Uncle G (talk) 07:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
- 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.
thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.100.87 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
BALEN SHAH
Random copy and paste of text from Anoop Bikram Shahi that has nothing to do with the Balen Shah article. Uncle G (talk) 07:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC) |
- 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.
International Nepal 2013–2015,[1][2] and represented Nepal at the Manhunt International Competition held at the Shenzhen Haiya Grand Theatre in Shenzhen, China in October 2016.[3] Shahi is also the winner of the D Cine Award 2015 for Best Actor in a Negative Role for the movie Hasiya. He is now a television personality as well. He is a famous gang leader of the popular Nepali adventure reality show Himalaya Roadies. He is associated with this show since 3rd season of this franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakuri736 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)