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: |
Monson Mavunkal
He looks to notable by notoriety but this article seems to violate NPOV. Welcome someone reviewing tone to make sure article accurately captures events without unnecessary senationalism. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is he a public figure? I don't see any convictions in the biography and some of the allegations go beyond cons like rape (even if he wasn't accused). Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- A deeper dive shows all his cases are pending. There does seem to be a significant amount of coverage of both types of allegations. I initially was debating CSD as attack page or stubbing but their own self-promotion and the amount of sustained coverage seems to counter WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and so dropped it here for more eyes. I certainly wouldn't object if others think the BLP concerns outweigh the coverage. Slywriter (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have taken this to AfD.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Negative Conspiracy theories about living person on Indian murder page
- 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Murder of Kanhaiya Lal ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Discussion thread : Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#Speculations_of_Rahul_Kanwal
- Controversial content being editwarred to be added
Special:Diff/1096311648/1096314102
On 1 July 2022, it was reported that Attari may have been planning to infiltrate the BJP through its loyalists, after photos of Attari attending BJP functions surfaced.[1]
References
- ^ Ojha, Arvind; Hizbullah, Md (1 July 2022). "Udaipur assailants may have plotted to infiltrate Rajasthan BJP Exclusive". India Today. Retrieved 3 July 2022.
Both pages are under WP:ARBIPA and WP:BLP discretionary sanctions. Asking help here as the discussion on Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#Speculations_of_Rahul_Kanwal is on impasse, with some users pointing to verifiability as a sufficient condition to add this negative content about the living person.
This is clearly speculated and reliable sources have noted that no evidence has been forwarded to support the theory of infiltration. These speculations fail WP:BLP and may change at a later time after court screening. We should not add it. Hindustan Times (HT) is different site Notes "During interrogation, accused Riyaz Atri has not uttered a word about his trying to enter BJP or target the saffron party leaders." So I would take this speculation from "unknown sources" with a large teaspoon of salt.Venkat TL (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yet the article you linked says:
- "
While Ghous Mohammed was trained by DeI functionaries in Karachi, the second killer Riyaz Attari was trying to infiltrate into the minority cell of Rajasthan's Bharatiya Janata Party unit. The investigation revealed that Attari, is a follower of Dawat-e-Islami leader Illyas Attar Qadri, was trying to get close to BJP leaders and workers of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch. He had attempted to get close to BJP Minority Morcha member
"[2] - There is no BLP violation since the text is clear about treating it as a claim or discovery from investigation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Agree with @CapnJackSp. Especially if that person's appearance in such BJP events is included as a potential suggestion that he had links with BJP. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- They did not admit but both @CapnJackSp and Webberbrad007 are parties to this content dispute, see WP:CNN and WP:NOTAVOTE. Venkat TL (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)That's not how BLP works. You wanted relevant opinion and anybody can comment here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Venkat TL Where have I participated about this before? Does participating in the editing of that article make me a party to any content dispute of that article? Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Consensus does not mean satisfy every last objection of a squeaky wheel. This appears to be a content dispute about sourcing, not a grave BLP problem. RfC is well equipped to handle it if local consensus can not be reached but consensus is neither unanimous nor satisfying to all editors. Slywriter (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see no BLP violation. It's funny how Venkat was quick to add text that linked the assailant to BJP (based on pictures of the assailant with BJP members), but it's a BLP violation when multiple reliable sources link the assailants to trying to infiltrate BJP. Hmm, really makes you think. A clear attempt to make a content dispute into a "BLP issue" by throwing a hissy fit. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- NebulaOblongata has been blocked for COI editing.
- The only non-involved editor in this thread, Slywriter, has suggested an WP:RFC for this. Please see the RFC at Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal#RfC about Attari's infiltration in BJP Venkat TL (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, Slywriter said,
"RfC is well equipped to handle it if local consensus can not be reached"
. About 6 days have passed and you are still alone with your misrepresentation of BLP while every other editor has pointed out how wrong you are. The RfC you started looks nothing more than a attempt to WP:STONEWALL against the already established against consensus that is opposed to your misrepresentation of BLP. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, Slywriter said,
- They did not admit but both @CapnJackSp and Webberbrad007 are parties to this content dispute, see WP:CNN and WP:NOTAVOTE. Venkat TL (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hidayat Orujov
Article: Sumgait pogrom
Edit: [3]
The edit summary links to this discussion, Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. I'll address some of the points;
Schiff only calls him “a leader”; not an official position, just saying he was an influential figure. The O’Connor source doesn’t appear to mention Schiff, so it’s not citing him, O’Connor source isn’t attributed to Schiff so it’s a separate source. My question being, was the removed information a BLP violation or not? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, this is addition to what I explained here Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. In his speech Schiff clearly refers to Orujov as the
leader of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan
, and I don't see any option to interpret what he stated in the different way. The O’Connor describes Orujov asThe Communist Party of Azerbaijan representative"
. Both of the assertions are inaccurate, because Orujov never held any position in the Communist party of Azerbaijan (I did not find any RS claiming that). Moreover, according to Orujov, he never made such statement, he wasn't holding any political positions at the time, and he wasn't even in the Sumgait. Considering that neither of the sources provide any evidence or reference to prove that Orujov made such a comment, the alleged WP:REDFLAG statement of the Orujev is nothing more than gossip. Abrvagl (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC) - Citing the remarks of politicians as a RS (the congressional links are WP:BLPPRIMARY) is inapproriate and the a1plus source does not discuss Orujov specifically. The only question is whether Biteback Publishing is RS. Even if it is, REDFLAG and WP:PUBLICFIGURE require multiple RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your response. I actually bought this book. The O’Connor just briefly quotes what was allegedly said by Orujov. He also does not discuss Orujov specifically, and neither provides any reference to prove his claims. I personally would expect him to refer to some kind of primary source from the time when Orujov made an alleged statement. If Orujov made such a statement, why do we hear about it first time like 30 years later? O’Connor also claims that Orujov was representative of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, which is not true because Orujov never held any position in the Communist Party of Azerbaijan. Biteback Publishing's book might be RS in general, but apparently not for this case. Abrvagl (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Alice Ripley
An IP has removed a cited block of content from this article, stating "There is an active lawsuit and Wikipedia will be on the hook for libelous material. "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." The content wrote about certain accusations that were in the news, in the voice of the multiple cited refs rather than in WP's own voice and seemed careful to avoid implying any of it was true. Ordinarily, I would simply start a talk-page discussion about it, but the IP has also removed that discussion from August 2021 on the same basis. Therefore, I'm coming here for others' input on whether the talk-page discussion, and beyond that the article content, should be kept.
Pinging Jbbdude who wrote the original article content after commenting in the talkpage and Sunshineisles2 who recently overhauled it. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are there better sources about this than the WP:DAILYBEAST to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are The Independent [4] and the Metro [5] in the UK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- per WP:RSP, the Independent is considered a reliable source while the Metro isn't. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- There are The Independent [4] and the Metro [5] in the UK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- There appears to be exactly one original source, an "exclusive" by WP:DAILYBEAST, and other tabloids/news outlets duly parroting what Daily Beast reported for a few days, and then radio silence. The gossip column Page Six printed an "exclusive" of their own, with Ripley again denying the allegations. After almost a year there appears to be no subsequent coverage of the allegations or further developments in reliable sources, and very little reason to include this blip in a BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like TMZ broke the unified story first (reporting on multiple others' previous social-media posts, and Ripley responded). To be clear, the content isn't "Ripley did this", but instead "there's a lot of social media about Ripley doing this, and Ripley has responded to it". So I think it's at a minimum reasonable for the talk-page discussion to stand and now with link to this BLPN thread, even if a non-credulous discussion concludes (as Animalparty says) that it wound up being just a blip. I also don't see any substantially more recent coverage in the news about it. I did turn up a Rolling Stone story using the Ripley situation as the starting-point for a more wide-ranging discussion of various related topics, the month after the TMZ story. Not sure that's enough to cross the threshold of "highlighted as an example/secondary-source providing context". DMacks (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I am a friend who will not be editing Alice Ripley's article. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines here only because no one else mentioned them. Please check that the guidelines are relevant and that my comments are neutral. Thank you. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)JunoSpriteRocket
This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Alice Ripley. - Per WP:RSP, The Daily Beast does not have the icon denoting "generally reliable," rather it has the icon denoting "no consensus" on the reliability of The Daily Beast and reads "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The Daily Beast's own editor from 2018-2021 called it a "high-end tabloid." This is the second sentence in the article. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLPRS, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The Daily Beast is a self-identified tabloid, a tabloid is a poor source, thus the contentious material should not be added to the article. (If A=B and B=C, then A=C.) JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. [...] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. I'm not particularly invested in this situation, generally, aside from wanting Wikipedia to be as complete and accurate as possible (which I hope motivates all... OK, most editors). I edited the page one time a year ago, which I did after I encountered a conversation among theater people which casually referenced some allegation. I found nothing about it on Wikipedia despite multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy.
- It seems pretty obvious (to me) that a) the deletion from the talk page was straight-up vandalism (I wouldn't have named the section "vile acts", but I didn't start the talk page section) and b) there should be some mention of this incident in the article given the multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy. The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims. Again, this situation was reported on by multiple reliable outlets over time, with one particularly extensive exposé. To me, it seemed like a case of the second example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE.
- As a separate issue... This feels like a WP:COI situation. I say this purely as speculation (again... feels), with no knowledge other than 1) the edits, 2) them coming from an IP user (an IP which has only edited these two articles) (an IP in a block assigned to Charter in Queens, NY; Ms. Ripley lives and works in NYC, and a quick Google search suggests Ms. Ripley may live or have lived in Long Island City or Ridgewood, and at some time maintained a fanmail PO Box in LIC), and 3) the discussion of ongoing, and threat of potential further, defamation litigation (something that I haven't seen reported publicly; another quick Google search brings up a GoFundMe supposedly from Alice Ripley herself, but no news coverage of a lawsuit or that GoFundMe; curiously, the user posting as Ms. Ripley suggests in that GoFundMe that these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable). (Obviously... that's a whole lot of original research and none of it would belong in an article, but the info seems relevant in this context) These are pretty standard indicators in such cases, with lawyers or PR folks or subjects themselves editing, no? Regardless, though, that's speculation (though I wouldn't call it wild or unfounded). More significantly, the edits clearly did not come from an NPOV perspective.
- As far as the law goes, IANAL but a) NYT v Sullivan lays out a pretty high bar for public figures, and b) I wrote my edit to report on the reporting without taking a stance on truth or falsity of the allegations. The editor cited the need to remove contentious material that was poorly sourced; the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced, and was not at all libelous. It's true that those things were reported. If there is a lawsuit, and some decision is made about something, that, too, would likely be notable, would be reported on by notable outlets, and would then warrant inclusion in the article. If there's news coverage of such a lawsuit now, it should probably be in the article now. All of this is to say, Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing. Here, there's credible sourcing. No malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard, a clear belief that there is a public interest in knowing this information and that the information presented was accurate, reliance upon reputable sources for the information.
- I am unaware of any requirement for ongoing coverage of a controversy or the presence of new updates/information to justify the inclusion of such a controversy in an article. I don't see anything about it in the BLP guideline pages. I would genuinely appreciate information on such a standard, if it exists, to improve my editing in the future.
- If the issue is sourcing, there are many reliable sources commenting on the allegations, at least on their existence if not the truth of them. Again, Ms. Ripley herself seems to (can't verify who's running a GoFundMe) claim that it's a notable enough situation that it's impacted her career. Also again, keep in mind that the article's subject is known for theater, not film or TV or whatever megastardom results in constant breathless national coverage of scandals. This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications, but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive. I'm not sure how any of that means it's not notable information.
- I'm curious to see how this discussion shakes out. At a bare minimum, I will restore the talk page content, which is an entirely separate issue from the removal of the article content.
- To paraphrase a quote variously and likely apocryphally attributed to Pascal and Twain, apologies for the long comment. I did not have time to write a shorter one. Or one with fewer parentheticals. Jbbdude (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Steve Linick
Hi, there are some serious issues in the article about Steve Linick, in the Trump-Ukraine scandal, subsection with slanted/biased content. Note: I have a personal connection to Steve Linick.
Here’s how it is now:
In the midst of the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Linick transferred a packet of documents from Rudy Giuliani by way of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin.[1][2][3]
This subsection falsely implies that 1) this was a leak on behalf of Mike Pompeo and 2) Linick knew he was passing documents from Rudy Giuliani to Congress. This is untrue and unsupported by a close reading of the sources. First, Linick received clearance from the FBI before he forwarded them to Congress. And the State Department leadership didn’t agree with Linick’s decision. Second, Giuliani did not publicly disclose he was the source of the documents until after they were sent to Congress. There’s nothing in the coverage that says Linick knew this. I’ve rephrased and added a small amount of context to make all this clear.
Here’s an accurate suggested replacement:
In the spring of 2019, the White House gave Mike Pompeo a group of documents related to the impeachment investigation of Trump. The documents, which at a later date Rudy Giuliani said originated with him, were passed to Linick, who sent them to the FBI. After he obtained FBI clearance, Linick forwarded them in October 2019 to Congress during the impeachment investigation of President Trump over the Trump–Ukraine scandal.[4] Linick’s action put him at odds with State Department leadership, which had decided not to cooperate with Congressional impeachment investigations.[5]
- Please note that there is also a Request Edit for this article with some other serious issues,Talk:Steve Linick#February 2022 Request Edit, which have now been on the RE queue since February 23, 2022. There are particular problems with Report on retaliation, and Firing subsections that are discussed in the REs. Skijackson (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ VOA News (October 2, 2019). "Democrats Puzzled by State IG's 'Urgent' Meeting". Voice of America. Retrieved October 3, 2019.
- ^ "Giuliani says State Dept vowed to investigate after he gave Ukraine docs to Pompeo". NBC News. October 3, 2019. Retrieved May 19, 2020.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Herb, Jeremy; Fox, Lauren; Raju, Manu; Hansler, Jennifer (October 2, 2019). "State Department inspector general gives Congress documents that Giuliani provided". CNN. Retrieved 2020-05-19.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (link) - ^ Herb, Jeremy; Fox, Lauren; Raju, Manu; Hansler, Jennifer (2 October 2019). "State Department inspector general gives Congress documents that Giuliani provided". CNN. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
- ^ Cohen, Zachary; Raju, Manu; Hansler, Jennifer (16 May 2020). "State Department inspector general becomes the latest watchdog fired by Trump". CNN. Retrieved 14 December 2021.
- Hi, I have reviewed your edits and incorporated all of them, with minor changes, into the article. My full reply and ping is at Talk:Steve Linick. Thank you for your excellent suggestions, and we hope you consider continuing to contribute edits to Wikipedia in the future. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Image for Jessica Cisneros
On Talk:Jessica Cisneros#Reopening images question we're discussing adding one or both of these images to the article, that otherwise doesn't have an image of the subject. (We looked quite a bit, asked the subject's reps, and had another image recently deleted; getting free-as-in-speech images isn't easy.)
The subject is a Texas attorney and twice unsuccessful political candidate; interestingly enough, her opponent in both attempts was Henry Cuellar, whom she is portrayed with in the second image, as an intern for. I pinged the 10 most recent editors of the article. Out of those, User:HaileJones and I are in favor of adding one or both. User:Beccaynr is against adding either, and suggested we take this to either this noticeboard or WP:NPOVN; she says adding either image would be a BLP violation, because it depicts her as a college student. No others of those pinged expressed an opinion when pinged, and it's been a week. So it's in theory two to one, but Beccaynr thinks we should bring it here or to WP:NPOVN. In an earlier discussion, held while Cisneros was actively in her last contest, User:KidAd was against adding the first image, while independently User:BottleOfChocolateMilk added the second image to the article, so might be considered one for one against, though neither participated in the current discussion. What do you think, oh caring and knowledgeable BLPN readers? Can we get a more definitive opinion? --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have asked GRuban to consider posting a more neutral message to this noticeboard; I also do not feel this summary is a complete reflection of the discussion at the article Talk page. However, one point that has not yet been specifically raised about these images is WP:BLPBALANCE, i.e.
Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.
Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)- I don't understand the disparaging light BLP argument in giving a younger photo of the person. This really should be a RfC instead if one hadn't been done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- From my view, one of the issues is that the use of the younger image helps promote a mischaracterization of her as much younger than she currently is, which can be disparaging, and the other creates an undue emphasis on defining her by her past and brief internship. These issues are discussed generally in the Writing about women essay. It seems unfair to the subject to use images that emphasize minor aspects of her biography and have the potential to misrepresent her in a disparaging manner. Her age has been an issue in the campaigns, so an extreme portrayal of her as much more youthful than she is seems to create a potentially disparaging and/or misleading light. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I see many biographies where the infobox photo is either outdated or does not represent the subject when they were notable because of photo availability. It does not distort or disparage the subject if we accurately caption the subject with the year. The clueless reader most likely does not know what she looks like older and any potential for disparagement on how old she should look is based on the bias of viewer. Start a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The issue of whether a small-font caption is enough to mitigate the impact of the image has been discussed on the Talk page, and per WP:ONUS, I do not plan to start an RfC, because
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
That there may be other BLPs with similar problems does not seem like a reason to create a similar problem in this BLP, where there are specific concerns related to this BLP subject. A concern about bias (e.g. "a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage") does seem important, and more so because it is a BLP, so I appreciate you identifying that issue. Beccaynr (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The issue of whether a small-font caption is enough to mitigate the impact of the image has been discussed on the Talk page, and per WP:ONUS, I do not plan to start an RfC, because
- I see many biographies where the infobox photo is either outdated or does not represent the subject when they were notable because of photo availability. It does not distort or disparage the subject if we accurately caption the subject with the year. The clueless reader most likely does not know what she looks like older and any potential for disparagement on how old she should look is based on the bias of viewer. Start a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- From my view, one of the issues is that the use of the younger image helps promote a mischaracterization of her as much younger than she currently is, which can be disparaging, and the other creates an undue emphasis on defining her by her past and brief internship. These issues are discussed generally in the Writing about women essay. It seems unfair to the subject to use images that emphasize minor aspects of her biography and have the potential to misrepresent her in a disparaging manner. Her age has been an issue in the campaigns, so an extreme portrayal of her as much more youthful than she is seems to create a potentially disparaging and/or misleading light. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't understand the disparaging light BLP argument in giving a younger photo of the person. This really should be a RfC instead if one hadn't been done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, so. I have read this and the talk page discussion. I'm at a loss as to what the objection to the image is. You made a good point on the talk page, because most arguments for inclusion are based on subjective reasons, but as far as I can tell the reasons for exclusion are just as subjective. My opinion is that a picture adds tremendously to the value of an article, simply because the human brain is wired visually. Nearly 50% of the brain is devoted to processing visual information, and the largest of those areas is solely dedicated to processing facial expressions. There has been a lot of research done and books written about the power an image has for enhancing comprehension and recall of written text. A name without a face is just that, but put a face to that name and people will be way more apt to cognize and recall the writing. It's always better to have photos of subjects whenever possible, and it's best if they are portrait-style pics with the subject looking directly at the camera whenever possible. A high quality is image is preferable to a low quality, of course, but even a low quality is better than nothing at all.
- But the one thing I would not be too concerned with, in an encyclopedia, is whether the image is up to date or not. I mean, even if we get an up-to-date image, are we going to continuously update it every year? Or every decade? What if we never get another image? We're not a newspaper, so we shouldn't be too concerned with the here and now. Encyclopedias are written from a perfect (or "timeless") perspective, as is what we write today will still be relevant 100 years from now, and a date in the caption satisfies that timeless nature.
- That's not to say you don't have a good, logical reason for your objection. It's just that I haven't seen anywhere what that reason is. Maybe there's something I'm missing? To me, this pic looks of decent quality for article size, it's a portrait-style image with her looking directly at the camera, and gives me a good visual of who the subject is. Unless there's a good reason not to use it, I would say it's a thousand times better than no image. If a better image comes along, then great, but this can be a good placeholder until then. If not, then 100 years from now it will be just fine too. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Gods, I wish I could write like that! --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The point is to avoid using an image that misleadingly emphasizes a female attorney and political candidate as a much-younger version of themselves, because this is a common form of bias and disparagement against women and it does not improve the encyclopedia. I think we can use common sense about this in the context of this article and these images, and there is no need to worry about setting a precedent for all images throughout the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's not to say you don't have a good, logical reason for your objection. It's just that I haven't seen anywhere what that reason is. Maybe there's something I'm missing? To me, this pic looks of decent quality for article size, it's a portrait-style image with her looking directly at the camera, and gives me a good visual of who the subject is. Unless there's a good reason not to use it, I would say it's a thousand times better than no image. If a better image comes along, then great, but this can be a good placeholder until then. If not, then 100 years from now it will be just fine too. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- But that's what I don't get. How is it disparaging against women? If it somehow is, then why is not disparaging against other genders? I see no logical connection between the two. And what happens if we do get a current image? Is there a time limit on how long we can use an image? None of that makes any sense. We simply use what we can get. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Writing about women essay linked above is designed to
help to identify the subtle and more obvious ways in which titles, language, images, and linking practices can discriminate against women.
One part of the essay warns,Do not refer to adult women as girls
, which from my view, indicates there can be a concern with how women are depicted. The essay also warns against defining women by their relationships, which raises a concern about using an image to emphasize her past internship with her political opponent in her BLP. In the Talk page discussion, I noted a recent example from the news of how characterizing women as much younger than they are can be used as a form of disparagement. I think this concern applies to all genders, but it is also a specific concern as applied to women and something that should be considered here. If we are able to obtain a contemporary image, then I think we should use it, and it would reflect how the sources and content focus on her contemporary notability. I do not think we can use whatever we can indiscriminately get if it is WP:UNDUE and/or if there are WP:BLPIMAGE problems. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The Writing about women essay linked above is designed to
- I looked up current photos of Cisneros and I don't see much of a difference between 29 yr old and 20 yr old Cisneros, much less disparaging or a BLP violation. Gruban, I encourage you to start a RfC to choose an appropriate photo among candidates as have been done in many articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- But that's what I don't get. How is it disparaging against women? If it somehow is, then why is not disparaging against other genders? I see no logical connection between the two. And what happens if we do get a current image? Is there a time limit on how long we can use an image? None of that makes any sense. We simply use what we can get. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Notification was made about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- Use neither. Per the date on the photo and DOB in bio, subject was 19 when this was taken. [ETA: Hm the metadata may be a year off; maybe she is 20 after all. Doesn’t really change my opinion.] Broadly I don’t really think I’d agree with using
teenagedstudent photos as a BLP’s sole image unless the subject was wikinotable at that age (e.g. young actors), and in particular, I agree with the above outlined concerns about doing it when the subject is a woman and when their age is at issue in the content that makes them notable. We should be scrupulous not to put a thumb on the scale. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC) - Comment These are some examples of how her age has been discussed:
- Buzzfeed, 2019: "The Cuellar campaign originally agreed to an interview for this story, but a spokesperson for the campaign said they wouldn’t answer any questions framed as responding to arguments the Cisneros campaign makes about Cuellar. “We’re not allowing a 26-year-old young lady who’s never done anything question the character of a dedicated public servant,” Colin Strother, a spokesperson for the [Cuellar] campaign, said in a phone call with BuzzFeed News, apparently referring to Cisneros."
- NBC News, 2020: "Pablo Lemos Jr., 72, spotted Cuellar while driving through the neighborhood and pulled his red pickup over to assure him of his support. [...] Of Cisneros, he says she's a good candidate but "real young.""
- NYT, 2022: The Young Progressive Lawyer at the Center of a Marquee Texas Runoff
- HuffPo, 2022: "The young progressive nearly beat Henry Cuellar in the Democratic primary in 2020 in Texas’ 28th district."
- Beccaynr (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Chika Oriuwa
Please check the References in this story. Someone has edited the 3rd reference in a racist way (James' Royson's article title) that bears no relationship to Royson's article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.180.73 (talk) 14:01, 6 Jul 2022 (UTC)
- Done, and hopefully an admin can revdel. Thank you for your report. Beccaynr (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) On the one hand, this was simple IP vandalism. On the other hand, because of how and when it happened, it lived on in the page after it got protected. Thanks to the IP for bringing this to our attention. It has been fixed, and the intervening versions in history have been revision-deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is updated so no need to delete
This article is fully verified and updated with perfect links and subjects so this article need to remove the template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocal Olian (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- @Vocal Olian: You need to tell us which article and which template you're referring to, or no-one will be able to give any opinion about it. Neiltonks (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vijay Varatharaj this page verified and updated it has deletion template on the page Vocal Olian (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article has been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Varadharaj. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vijay Varatharaj this page verified and updated it has deletion template on the page Vocal Olian (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Brian Eley
A tricky one this. As a former British chess champion he certainly passes WP:GNG, though he is arguably better known for something far more unsavory. Apparently he recently died; while I have no reason to doubt this, the only source so far is an entry on findagrave, written by a Lutheran pastor who was apparently friends with him in Amsterdam. Regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse, it is referred to as an "open secret" in UK chess circles, but reliable sources are very scarce, and one of the few mainstream media reports (Sunday Telegraph from 1996) is no longer accesssible online. Note also this piece by British writer Fiona Pitt-Kethley. Anyway I got around the lack of RS for his death by linking to the Yorkshire Chess Association article which similarly notes that findagrave is user generated and therefore unreliable, though this entry certainly doesn't look like a hoax. So what do we do with this? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's best just to ignore rumors and questionable/unreliable sources, which includes the Yorkshire Chess Association notice. To claim someone may have died is a huge deal. There is no harm in waiting for better sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- My concern is that neither the mainstream press nor the chess press want anything to do with this, which is understandable on some level, and we could be stuck with an article in 20 years time claiming he is still alive. This is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia a laughing stock. If no RS appears in the next few weeks, I propose a WP:IAR exception, indirectly citing findagrave via the Yorkshire Chess Association. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'll tell you what else can make Wikipedia a laughing stock. Citing unreliable sources for claims that fugitives from justice are deceased. See Nicholas Alahverdian. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- My concern is that neither the mainstream press nor the chess press want anything to do with this, which is understandable on some level, and we could be stuck with an article in 20 years time claiming he is still alive. This is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia a laughing stock. If no RS appears in the next few weeks, I propose a WP:IAR exception, indirectly citing findagrave via the Yorkshire Chess Association. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- The article doesn't claim he's still alive - it just doesn't say he's dead. Wait and see what reliable sources say about his apparent demise. See John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan or Jimmy Hoffa for comparable situations. Daveosaurus (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- It is probably worth noting that Wikipedia must already contain a great number of biographies of individuals who are now deceased, while not indicating the fact. This is inevitable given the relatively lax inclusion standards for biographies. Being 'notable' by Wikipedia standards is no guarantee that 'reliable sources' will consider a death perhaps many decades later to be worthy of comment. I would think that most readers would understand this, and not assume that the mere absence of a reported death is somehow conclusive evidence that an individual is alive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah but we know this guy's dead, but wikipedia "rules" are preventing us from noting the fact. He's not Lord Lucan, plenty of people in Amsterdam knew him personally and a couple of them wrote about him after his death. they just used the "wrong" website. It's dumb, which is why wikipedia has an IAR policy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, we don't know Eley is dead. Findagrave isn't a reliable source. WP:BLP is core Wikipedia policy, not to be ignored on a whim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Knowing is one thing. Proving it is something entirely different. See: WP:NOR. It's far better to err on the side of caution in these cases. This comes up a lot here, and if we get these things wrong and announce someone's death before their time, it can not only make us a laughing stock, but can be downright traumatic to our subjects, their families, and friends. It's far better to have an article that simply has not reported someone's death than to report it prematurely. Him being a fugitive doesn't seem reason enough to ignore this rule. If someone get's to the age of 120, then we can consider them deceased without the need for sources.
- The thing to look for is an obituary. You may have to look locally or dig deep, but if you can find one, that we can use. Unfortunately, not everyone gets an obituary, because it's up to the family to write it and submit it to the newspapers. In many cases, there's nothing we can do but leave it open ended. Zaereth (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- We "don't know he's dead" - yeah right. [6] [7]. We've got an obituary, they just published it on the "wrong" website. IAR is a core policy too. Let me restate it because it applies exactly here - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Also "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Citing significant biographical details to unreliable sources that accept input from absolutely anyone isn't 'improving Wikipedia'. And what kind of grave marker includes an URL? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Brian Eley's grave marker does, that's what kind of grave marker. Maybe this will become commonplace. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Citing significant biographical details to unreliable sources that accept input from absolutely anyone isn't 'improving Wikipedia'. And what kind of grave marker includes an URL? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Would you like me to upload an image of a grave marker with a link to WP:RS on it? It's dark right now, but I could have it ready by tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, I think that photograph of the grave stone with the "findagrave.com" plaque is totally photoshopped. Doesn't it seem strange that the shadow on the stone is not also cast on the plaque? The shadow stops right at the edge of rectangular plaque. Shadows don't do that. The plaque was copy-pasted onto to the image in another layer. It's actually a pretty bad photoshop job. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't know about the shadow, but the URL text looks misaligned relative to the rest of the text. And why use two different fonts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is something really off about this image, it has been manipulated. Netherzone (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- And. you are right about the text alignment. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- This is some conspiracy theory bullshit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I agree! But I couldn't put my finger on what was off until I took a closer look at it. Notice that the top of the metal plaque aligns with the top side of the stone perfectly, but the sides are off by about 15 degrees. The camera angles are different. It looks like two different pictures overlaid. I also notice there are shadows on the stone from trees or something overhead, but no shadows on the plaque, and the lighting and focus just seems off. The eye is very sensitive to these things even if the conscious mind doesn't know why it looks weird. I did some checking into this website, and apparently anyone can upload photos and make "virtual memorials", and there is no oversight or fact checking of any kind. It's kind of a cheap, poorly designed site that doesn't look like it's changed since Windows 93 was a thing. I wouldn't trust this site as far as I could throw it, and the photo does look very odd. For all I know this could be an attempt by the subject himself to allude capture, but I'll believe it when it's confirmed in a reliable source. There is still plenty of for the family to submit an obituary. Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The photo of Eley on the coffin has a Getty Image watermark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- So? It's a well known pic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Or at least, one that comes up readily on a Google search. Personally, if I was placing a photo of a friend or relative on a coffin, I'd try to find one that wasn't prominently marked with Getty's logo... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- So? It's a well known pic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- The photo of Eley on the coffin has a Getty Image watermark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- And. you are right about the text alignment. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- There is something really off about this image, it has been manipulated. Netherzone (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Don't know about the shadow, but the URL text looks misaligned relative to the rest of the text. And why use two different fonts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- BTW, I think that photograph of the grave stone with the "findagrave.com" plaque is totally photoshopped. Doesn't it seem strange that the shadow on the stone is not also cast on the plaque? The shadow stops right at the edge of rectangular plaque. Shadows don't do that. The plaque was copy-pasted onto to the image in another layer. It's actually a pretty bad photoshop job. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- IRA is a stupid rule, in my opinion, but BLP policy trumps all other policies, because what we write about living people can have very profound, real-world consequences. Your sources are not reliable. Obituaries are things you find in newspapers. Zaereth (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
So, assuming the mainstream sources don't report his death, we have to wait another 50 years before wikipedia can say he's dead? That's ridiculous. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, we don't say he's dead at all unless there's a reliable source for it. Whether or not the Findagrave memorial is genuine is immaterial - Findagrave is not a reliable source - anyone can edit it (just like Wikipedia). In any case, it seems extremely suspicious to me that the plaque photograph - which looks like a typical undertaker's temporary memorial to mark a grave site before the family shells out for a proper plaque or headstone - includes the Findagrave website link! This all seems very dodgy to me. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Suella Braverman
Merkwürdig - wieso als Sohn geboren??? Suella wurde als Tochter geboren!
Frühes und persönliches Leben
Braverman wurde als Sohn von Christie und Uma Fernandes geboren, indischer Herkunft, [4] [5] die in den 1960er Jahren aus Kenia und Mauritius nach Großbritannien ausgewandert waren . Ihre Mutter war Krankenschwester und Stadträtin in Brent [5] und ihr Vater, von goanischer Abstammung in Südindien , [6] arbeitete für eine Wohnungsbaugesellschaft. Sie wurde in Harrow im Großraum London geboren und wuchs in Wembley auf . [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.243.161.33 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
- I think this is an issue caused by your translator, as the Suella Braverman article does not make that claim at all. Iffy★Chat -- 16:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Judy Barrett Litoff
Judy Barrett Litoff died July 3, 2022 at age 77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.236.200 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- What reliable sources are reporting that? —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Stavros Halkias
The last line of Stavros Halkias reads "Halkias' use of slurs and reliance on offensive humor (on topics including LGBTQ+ issues, the intellectually disabled, victims of child molestation, and terrorism) have long been a hallmark of the program's material." The information is used to pad a "Controversy" section. The sources are YouTube clips of the comedian making jokes regarding these topics. Question: is it appropriate to use primary-sourced material to support a point that a person is controversial and at least implicitly offensive? This strikes me as OR, and a bit of a red-herring used to pad a controversy section, but I've been wrong in the past, so I am sincerely curious. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Update: someone removed the line, but an SPA will almost certainly restore it, so revision for reference. Brycehughes (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- No, that's certainly not appropriate. I have removed the offending section and requested the page be protected at WP:RFPP. Endwise (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah I tried that. And failed. But I did discover BLPN in the process so that was cool. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Philip Firsov
This article does not contain any references or external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.188.225 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've tagged the article as an obvious autobiography, and prodded. There is some almost sourcing, so I didn't blpprod. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Mike Buchanan (politician)
Good morning. I’m Mike Buchanan, the subject of a biography. I’ve already requested some corrections through the ‘Talk’ tab – for example, we changed our party’s name three months ago – but thought I’d request some changes directly to you. The text in inverted commas represents the start of individual paragraphs in my entry.
“The party issues awards for ‘lying feminist of the month’ to female journalists”. We no longer issue any of the awards mentioned in this and the next sentence, and they were not restricted to female journalists. I suggest changing ‘female journalists’ to ‘feminists’. We also issued ‘Gormless Feminists of the Month’ awards.
“In April 2019…” This paragraph contains the sentence “University staff claimed that J4MB had engaged in harassment of female academics.” The claim was a lie, please remove. “Before Buchanan was due to give his speech on ‘Equal Rights for Men and Women’, a student threw a milkshake over him in a Cambridge pub. The event went ahead…” Can you please add “Elizabeth Hobson, the party’s Director of Communications, gave a speech on ‘The History of Feminism’ ”. “An attendee at the event was accused of assaulting two of the student protestors.” The accusation is a lie, the man was assaulted by the protesters – who would be so stupid as to assault two people in a protest? – please omit.
Can you please add at this point, “In April 2022 Buchanan announced his intention to stand at the next general election in Bedford, an extremely marginal seat. His party’s manifesto for that election is here https://cafp.uk/manifesto/. Mohammad Yasin was re-elected for Labour in 2019 with a majority of just 145 votes more than his Conservative rival.” Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.227.105 (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Ron Hevener
Of all the things published about me in the press over the years, your mention of a legal issue (that was dropped) is the one that damages my reputation and income the most. If you insist on advertising such information, then why not go for a more balanced approach in what you publish and show what a productive, living person can learn or do about such a shocking experience? Maybe something like this would be helpful: "He went on to write a novel called 'The Farmers Market' showing how we can fix the broken animal control system." .... Something like that would change this from a "critic review" advertising against the life's work of a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Hevener (talk • contribs) 09:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- What? A "critic review"? Because there is one paragraph of negative material (well sourced, and which someone has tried to remove on multiple occasions) in an article which otherwise is basically promoting you? Also, stop adding unsourced material to that article. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Mako001 (and your overly-personal interest in my biography for the past many hours) but the "unsourced" material you are referring to is a magazine article published in The Dog Press ...
- https://www.thedogpress.com/DogSense/why-animal-lovers-must-turn-it-around-r21H092.asp Ron Hevener (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ron Hevener, that is an article that you wrote to promote a self-published novel that you wrote. To say that it does not belong in the Wikipedia biography of you is an understatement. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- I was initially concerned about BLPCRIME, but found confirmation of conviction.[8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hooray! You've made Wikipedia better!!!!! All misdeeds must never be forgotten. Keep up the good work! --Animalparty! (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, I do not think that Hevener is notable, and I suggest that an uninvolved editor take the article to AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hevener Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Frankly, I do not think that Hevener is notable, and I suggest that an uninvolved editor take the article to AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hooray! You've made Wikipedia better!!!!! All misdeeds must never be forgotten. Keep up the good work! --Animalparty! (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Mary de Rauchewiltz
Mary de Rauchewiltz, the daughter of Olga Rudge and Ezra Pound is being defamed and slandered in her entry on Wikipedia. I will not repeat the disgusting defamation, but the first two sentences contain totally untrue and totally defamatory language. It begins by calling her "infamous." I am surprised Mary has not sued you yet. I will inform her of what is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judemezzetta (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Vandalism, already reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Zach Wilson
Please review the page, some one has insered phrases such as [redacted]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.168.52.48 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Daniel Garcia (wrestler)
I first made this edit [9] about the subject of the article, which mostly discusses a 2019 car crash in which the subject was almost killed, and suffered serious, near career-ending injuries. As the basis for this edit, I used a primary and a secondary source. The edit was reverted, and I was informed the edit needed better sources, as the secondary source was rated unreliable by the dedicated wrestling wikiproject. In this subsequent edit [10], I readded the information but with new, reliable secondary sources. I thought this would be fine, but instead, I was informed here that I was in serious breach of WP:BLP guidelines.
The subject of the article is Daniel Garcia. Garica appeared in an out-of-character podcast with his peer, Chris Jericho. In the podcast, they discuss the car crash. The objector to my edits objects to a number of statements from the podcast, a primary source, being used in the article, such as:
- The statement by Garcia that he was asleep at the time of the crash
- The statement by Garcia that the car he was travelling in was split in two during the crash
- The statement by Garcia that he choose to complete a communications degree because he had heard Jericho had completed one and that it was beneficial to his career
- The statement by Jericho that he had donated to a gofundme supporting Garcia and the others involved in the crash prior to having a working relationship with him.
I told the objector that I'm happy to reword the edit if needed, but that there is no issue with the underlining content, which I believe warrants inclusion and can be included as WP:Aboutself statements. I've already included secondary sources and am happy to include more, as it will improve the edit, but I believe that the primary source would be sufficient to include the above-contested statements. The statements are about WP:Aboutself statements, and in some cases, something only the person themselves could truly know.
The objector to the edits has suggested taking the discussion about the edits here. I'd appreciate your input into this. Can statement like those listed above be included under WP:Aboutself guidelines, or are they in breach of WP:RSPRIMARY?
Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've explained my view about NPOV being the most relevant policy in this instance to CeltBrowne. They've never responded with how their edit did not violate the policy. The depth of detail was improper, as it included more than what secondary sources publish. The quantity of text in dispute exceeded the secondary sources-supported text. The prominence of placement, established via the creation of a subsection, was improper. The juxtaposition of statements supported by the podcast with the existing material gives the impression that each neutral statement equally warrants inclusion.
- The BLP aspect is that the material inappropriately puts a positive light on Chris Jericho (in addition to general coverage on another article other than Jericho's BLP) and gives sympathy to Garcia. CeltBrowne even said that the intent of one of the statements was to help readers not "mistakenly assume it was because of the relationship [Garcia and Jericho] would develop later chronologically". It sounds like an attempt to accentuate that relationship when sources have not done so. KyleJoantalk 11:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't see how ABOUTSELF applies when there were four people in the car and it sounds like he wasn't even the driver. And number 3 and 4 explicitly refer to a different person. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- For 3, I'm arguing that Garcia is making an aboutself statement about his own motive for completing a communications degree.
- For 4, I'm arguing that Jericho is making an aboutself statement about his own motive for donating to a cause. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. ABOUTSELF doesn't say it's okay if it involves third parties if it refers to someone's own motive. It says it cannot involve claims about third parties point blank. By definition Garcia saying he heard Jericho did a communication degree is Garcia making a claim about a third party. Prefacing with "he heard" and it being an explanation for some motivation cannot be justification to allow it, otherwise someone could write "I heard that person A is a paedophile/rapist/murderer/'insert other extremely evil thing here', that's why I broke off contact with him/refused to work with him/whatever" on their blog and it's fine for us to include it. But that's so obviously against BLP, hopefully it doesn't even need to be said. (The exceptional claim bit is intended to cover exceptional claims someone makes about themselves not claims they make about other people since we're not supposed to include their claims about other people at all. But if you do want to argue that point, we can use less extreme examples where arguably the claim isn't really exceptional because it's minor enough and after all it's just what person A heard but it's clear we shouldn't be including it because of the possibility of harm to person A.) Similarly, Jericho is making explicit claims about when he met Garcia. Also by your logic, what on earth does this have to do with Garcia anyway? Aren't we discussing additions to the article on Garcia? If it has zilch to do with Garcia why on earth would we include what Jericho said in an article on Garcia? Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Okay, your example is a good one and makes me understand how the third party aspect could be abused, and I'll avoid doing so in future. Although, in this very specific case, in the same primary source where Garcia claims Jericho completed a communications degree, Jericho himself confirms that's true, so it's kind of a closed loop situation (It's a podcast where they're speaking directly to each other).
- Just so I'm clear on all this; From your example, am I correct in thinking the following:
- "John Smith stated in 2016 he donated to the election campaign of Bernie Sanders" would be allowed, as Smith is only making a claim about his own actions, and not about Sanders. However "John Smith stated in 2016 he donated to the election campaign of Bernie Sanders because he thought Sanders was anti-establishment" would be in breach, because now it includes a claim about Sanders. Is that correct or incorrect? Or is the guideline so strict that the mention of Sanders alone would disqualify it? CeltBrowne (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes mention of Sanders would disqualify it although not just because it involves a third party. IMO such a claim is also unduly self-serving. ABOUTSELF is intended to be used very little and only for including only very minor things. If someone says I have 3 cats maybe. (Although it will depend on the context.) If someone says I donated to X, no. Note also that ABOUTSELF is about self published sources. This is Jericho's podcast, so ABOUTSELF would only apply to Jericho. You earlier said that "in some cases, something only the person themselves could truly know" but that's irrelevant. The point of ABOUTSELF is that no reliable secondary source has evaluated the claim and decided it was suitable for publication and in what form. The claim may originate from someone, but this doesn't stop sources from republishing it. That's what our best article do, they summarise what people have said about themselves, what others have said about the, what is known about them, etc etc all as reported by reliable secondary sources often not relying on ABOUTSELF at all. (We may sometimes include original tweets etc as sources but only as additional sources based on RS mentions of these tweets.) Depending on the specific claim etc, this may include the noteworthiness of the claim but also if there are any questions over it's veracity. For example, if someone said something else in the past or part of what they said is in contradiction of available evidence, a good source should generally point this out but we do not expect a self published source to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're missing the point. ABOUTSELF doesn't say it's okay if it involves third parties if it refers to someone's own motive. It says it cannot involve claims about third parties point blank. By definition Garcia saying he heard Jericho did a communication degree is Garcia making a claim about a third party. Prefacing with "he heard" and it being an explanation for some motivation cannot be justification to allow it, otherwise someone could write "I heard that person A is a paedophile/rapist/murderer/'insert other extremely evil thing here', that's why I broke off contact with him/refused to work with him/whatever" on their blog and it's fine for us to include it. But that's so obviously against BLP, hopefully it doesn't even need to be said. (The exceptional claim bit is intended to cover exceptional claims someone makes about themselves not claims they make about other people since we're not supposed to include their claims about other people at all. But if you do want to argue that point, we can use less extreme examples where arguably the claim isn't really exceptional because it's minor enough and after all it's just what person A heard but it's clear we shouldn't be including it because of the possibility of harm to person A.) Similarly, Jericho is making explicit claims about when he met Garcia. Also by your logic, what on earth does this have to do with Garcia anyway? Aren't we discussing additions to the article on Garcia? If it has zilch to do with Garcia why on earth would we include what Jericho said in an article on Garcia? Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Bernard Looney
Bernard Looney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hi editors, I'm Arturo and I work for bp. I noticed some changes that were made to the article about our CEO, Bernard Looney, back in February that I think are inaccurate and not representative of more current sourcing. I have made some edit requests related to that content and one inaccuracy has been corrected, but I still have concerns about the neutrality and relevance of the content present in the article.
The content in question was added as the events of the Russian invasion of Ukraine were just beginning and things were moving quickly. Much has since changed in bp's relationship with Russia. This added content focuses heavily on Rosneft and includes a large amount of information on Igor Sechin, which is not relevant to an article about Mr. Looney. I believe this violates the guideline on due weight. The way this information is included ties Mr. Looney to the Kremlin in a way that is inaccurate, and other information has since become outdated, as within days of the invasion, Mr. Looney resigned from the Rosneft board and bp was one of the first companies to announce it was cutting ties with Rosneft. Furthermore, this language was inserted in a way that I believe violates guidelines on impartial tone. My concerns were dismissed by the editor that reviewed my initial edit request, but I feel it is important to revisit this issue.
I have drafted potential replacement content that I believe significantly improves the neutrality of this content and provides needed additional context. I am hoping an editor here will provide additional feedback on that content and reassess its potential inclusion as a means to help this article improve the neutrality of its text and remain focused on Mr. Looney.
If this is not the right place to post such a request, please let me know and I will go to the appropriate place. Thank you in advance for reviewing this. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello Arturo. First, thank you very much for disclosing your conflict of interest and working to do this the right way. You've obviously done your research on policy, which is refreshing.
- That said, here's the difficulty. This is all reliably sourced as far as I can tell. Now admittedly I didn't have time to read through all the sources, but the ones I did check had the subject as a central piece to the story and not just a passing mention. This is why Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. This often becomes a problem when an article is as short as this one, because what we have now is basically half of the sources all about this one event. In determining weight, what we do is "weigh" those sources against all of the other sources out there on this subject (not just the ones in the article, but all sources). Then we try to apportion everything in the article accordingly. If 50% of the sources are about this one thing, then 50% of the body of the article should cover it, as should about 50% of the lede. If it's only about 25%, or 10%, or even 1%, then we should also reflect that in how we apportion the article.
- So, as you can see, judging due weight is a very challenging task. Not all sources give the same amount of coverage nor carry the same weight. A source that only mentions him in passing is not as good as one where he is central to the story, nor is a low quality source as good as a high quality source, for example. That's something that needs to be carefully worked out on the talk page. If you can find more sources about other things he's notable for, you can better argue that the weight is not right, but what this will likely end up doing is expanding the rest of the article rather than shrinking what is already there. That's not always a bad thing, because weight can be a bigger factor to the reader than content. That's something to work out on the talk page.
- Now, about Mr. Sechin. That is also reliably sourced. You may have the makings of a good argument that much of it is irrelevant and may need toning down. I don't know. Maybe they just served on the same board together and were not BFFs, but whatever it was, that at least seems to deserve some mention, simply because the public likes to know when notable people have relationships with each other. That's something you'll have a hard time getting rid of entirely, but maybe you have the ingredients for a good argument that it is being given too much detail and weight within itself.
- However. I do see other things that seem a bit of a problem. First is the misuse of the word "controversy". This is a particular pet-peeve of mine, because a controversy is a "widespread public debate". A controversy is not any old event that is viewed as negative. I see nothing about a public debate, and especially not a widespread one. The thing is, news rarely ever covers an actual controversy, because they create and partake in them instead. Thus, "controversy" sections should rarely be found on Wikipedia, but rather they should be given a more neutral title that reflects the actual event, or just worked into the timeline of the article. These sections often just become a dumping ground for anything negative, and the title itself can have undue negative connotations. Then there is the use of several sources interstitially dispersed throughout single sentences. If you need more than one or two sources to make a single sentence (and especially if those sources need to be interstitially dispersed between every clause), that raises a big, red flag for WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not saying that it is, because I haven't gone through all the sources, but it always raises that flag. You shouldn't need to construct a sentence out of multiple sources like a preacher would a sermon. It just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.
- So, there's not much we can do from here, I don't think, from a BLP standpoint. I'd try gathering all the sources you can and take it back to the talk page, and discuss, discuss, discuss. If that fails, you can try WP:NPOVN to get further input, or even go through the dispute resolution process. Take it to WP:DRN, or open an WP:RFC. Those are the hoops you'll have to jump through. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh, and a bit of advice. Try tackling these issues one at a time. You'll have much better luck at getting each one its individual attention, and it will be less likely to break the discussions into a thousand little tangents. Zaereth (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- Zaereth: Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and detailed reply to my query. You have provided me with a lot of good insight and offered concrete next steps that I can pursue for others to review the issues I have raised. I understand what you mean about weight and inclusion of reliably sourced material. I still do believe that the content on the Bernard Looney article contains neutrality issues and is not representative of more current sourcing; I will see what I can do to tackle these little by little through the processes you outlined above. This has been very helpful. Thank you. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Arturo. And thanks again for doing this within policy. Yes, neutrality, weight and balance can be tricky things to work out. Some issues are pretty blatant, and that's what this board can help with, but others are more subtle and debatable, which is where it needs to be discussed with the people who are most familiar with the subject and have read all of the sources, which is why you should at least begin at the talk page. You have the beginnings of a discussion there, but, from an outsider's standpoint, there should be more discussion, so I can really see what the logic behind each side's argument is. That's very helpful to the next board you take this to (if it's not able to be resolved beforehand). Technically, this all falls within WP:NPOV. Just keep in mind, weight and balance can be a double-edged sword. People often come here with the idea of setting the story straight with more sources, and that should be done if we got something wrong or later sources have a better perspective, but that also adds more weight to that one thing. Just something to consider. Once again, thanks for adhering to policy, and I wish you the best of luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
Zoe Daniel
There is a serious issue at Zoe Daniel relating to this evidence-free and plainly defamatory allegation about a living person added by User:SmartSE, which saw Wikipedia's claim then picked up by here by a national newspaper.
The background is here, where the claim made at the top of the article wasn't even alleged, merely that the article had been created by a supporter who may have had a conflict-of-interest.
There appears to be a message from the article subject on the talk page stating that the claim was false and defamatory.
Given that there was absolutely no reasonable basis for even making the allegation added to the article, and that that false allegation has then picked up by the media (on the basis that Wikipedia claimed it, not on the basis that it was true), the edits should be removed from the history and SmartSE warned post-haste. Australian defamation law is notoriously strict and this is so blatant Wikipedia wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it wound up in court. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, I can tell you, you're coming very close to WP:No legal threats. Just thought I'd point that out. Wikipedia does have one good leg to stand on, and that is that its servers are based in the US, and thus falls under US defamation laws. The so called allegation is a simple maintenance tag that anyone can add if they feel the article needs closer inspection. It does not in any way state or imply a law was broken, policy violated, or wrongdoing was done on anyone's part, or even that one was done at all. It's just one of those, "Hey, someone thinks something might be wrong with this article but won't or is not able to assess it fully for themselves, so they're sticking on this tag in the hopes someone else will figure it all out" tags. It's a sorry excuse for a newspaper that would try to connect those dots. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the edits from the article's visible history. The discussion at the talk page appears to be handling the situation, without need for input from the BLP board. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, MelanieN. @Zaereth:, that's profoundly mistaken on several levels. Commonwealth courts, with their usually far stricter defamation laws, have been holding American publishers to those laws successfully and regularly for years. It plainly implies a likely connection with the subject, which was why a major national newspaper reported Wikipedia as making that claim. It is impossible to make a legal threat by pointing out that Wikipedia is in deep risk of breaching defamation law with regard to a famous person, since me, a random member of the public, has no right to sue on their behalf. This is the kind of well-intentioned cluelessness about legal issues that could prove extremely costly for Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have removed the edits from the article's visible history. The discussion at the talk page appears to be handling the situation, without need for input from the BLP board. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
James Lu
James Lu entry has an IP address 80.58.155.14 that repeatedly inserts negative and non factual information. It cites articles on the website that is incomplete and also conflicting. Upon removal of this information, the user inserts it back again. It is causing vandalism of a living BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnessjames (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
William Timmons
William Timmons ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kimsguccis has persistently introduced unsourced or poorly sourced material into the article, despite reverts and warnings. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have indefinitely pageblocked Kimsguccis from editing that article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case
Accused non public figure Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case. I tagged for speedy. Per WP:SUSPECT. checking if I am right, because the editor (User:Jax 0677) removed the first PROD, and I clarified the BLP issue and tagged it for speedy. Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, Bruxton. I certainly agree that this is a crappy, poorly referenced article that ought to be deleted. But which specific WP:CSD criterion does it fall under? WP:SUSPECT is not a valid CSD criterion. An article about the crime may be appropriate, but this is not it, by a long shot. I suggest WP:AFD, hoping for a snow close. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Julie Budd
Several accounts have recently attempted to rewrite this to a blatantly promotional version. If it continues I'll request page protection, but in the meantime, more eyes will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Damani Nkosi
Damani Nkosi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The user InglewoodTK has removed sourced content from the article and appears to be inserting content that is non-neutral. The way they talk makes me think that they could possibly have a COI related to the subject. I would appreciate any outside help as I am not well versed in dealing with disputes like this. Thank you. StartOkayStop (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)