This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
POV editing, sources. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8E9:8F84:47A1:F1C1 ( talk) 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the third or fourth 2601... mobile editor, I've seen in these last few days. The others have since been blocked per WP:EVADE & WP:SOCK. Is a range block going to be required? GoodDay ( talk) 03:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I've semi-protected for a limited time. Almost the only edits to the article for the past 5 days have been back-and-forth over a single piece of content. Uncle G ( talk) 10:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This article of a Filipino celebrity, who has barely reached the age of majority, has been subject to unrelenting fancruft over the years that nobody seems to have had the energy to fix; moreover, the edits are broken up into 1000+ double digit byte changes making it close to impossible to track where the problems really began.
There is an important legal concern to this. The article mentions the name of her siblings, many of which are still minors, as well as celebrity gossip of relationships and various influencer partnerships (as well as actual, literal ships by fans) while everyone involved was still a minor. This is of course not even beginning to touch on the general promotional tone the article is still in.
I have done my best to fix the tone, but to me it still reads like fancruft, uses a lot of gossip rags as sources (much of which is in Tagalog, which I don't know so I can't judge the reliability of) and possibly carries a lot of undue mentions of awards, appearances, partnerships and such. More importantly, I believe there may be information previously included in the article that could require revdelling as it concerns minors, and I don't know which revision to point to because they are all so distributed. Fermiboson ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
All of that stuff is in this one, too. Uncle G ( talk) 17:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I just reverted 4 distinct BLP issues at Jeffrey Toobin. Of these 4, the question of including "masturbation" in a heading is borderline, more a matter of editorial discretion than of strict policy; but the other 3 were serious BLP issues, including one piece of vandalism that lasted 4 days and one overly confident representation of a source that had persisted since 2019, another since 2021admin only, sry. I would appreciate if others could take a look at whether there are any other BLPvios in this high-profile article, and would also appreciate if an uninvolved admin would consider a long-term or indefinite protection, perhaps under WP:NEWBLPBAN. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
[3] Does this addition violate BLP per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist leader where he claims that the person in question helped escalate a separatist movement based in India because he wanted revenge for Pakistan's defeat in some war with India which is obvious gossip material. It is further being put on the lead as if its some key detail/summary of the body.
Full discussion with another editor who doesn't agree at
Talk:Khalistan_movement#November Kiu99 ( talk) 15:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. Apologies if this is not the most appropriate page to raise this matter, but I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this article because it has been the target of excessively detailed editing by an almost completely SPA editor (and possibly COI as well) for some time and who has managed to gradually re-add over recent months a considerable amount of excessive detail (and possibly added even more) and POV and peacockery comments which was removed last year when this problem was first noticed. I have rolled the article back to what seemed to be the last good version before the re-adding of the excessive detail. As the editor also has some article ownership issues, which are apparent from his/her comments on the article's talk page, I am expecting further problems due to this. With thanks. Yahboo ( talk) 05:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The section "On the Palestinian Authority and Hamas" cites editorial summary as fact, using tendentious and potentially libelous language not present in original source rather than quoting it directly. Specifically, the cited Jerusalem Post article characterizes a rote description of shock and awe as "praise", a misleading paraphrase which is not supported by the original text. The link to the Jerusalem Post summary should be replaced with a link to the original article on Electronic Intifada, and the tendentious paraphrase should be replaced with direct quotes.
Note that the user who added the unreliable Jerusalem Post citation has already been flagged repeatedly for NPOV violations, so correcting this would not be unprecedented.
Note also that Electronic Intifada has already described the Jerusalem Post summary in question as being related to a coordinated campaign by a former IDF spokesperson trying to convince Columbia University to revoke Massad's tenure. The ongoing conflict surrounding this campaign is noteworthy as it mirrors the previous campaign described under the Columbia Unbecoming section. However, any secondary sources (i.e. sources other than the original Electronic Intifada editorial written by Massad) should be carefully screened for NPOV, which would disqualify both the Jerusalem Post summary and the Electronic Intifada article about the campaign.
Note finally that I deliberately logged out before posting this comment because I don't trust the sorts of people who post content in violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies. (Obviously, logging out before posting this means that I cannot subscribe to this page for updates.) — 68.199.153.120 ( talk) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Well this is quite out of control, and apparently triggered by a news report last month. An edit that preceded the lock Special:Diff/1182110005, and recent talk page posts include Special:Diff/1186583059; Special:Diff/1186583237; Special:Diff/1186582490; Special:Diff/1186581664. It's right that editors discuss discrepancies and work things out, but both the article and talk page comments have been skirting WP:BLP violations, and merit rev/deletion consideration. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:18, 24 November 2023 (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.
After posting the article here, an attempt was made to publish it on the Russian-language Wikipedia. As a result, the author of the article was subjected to harassment, and the article became the target of attacks by citizens of the Russian Federation. The likely reason is the author's nationality (Ukrainian) and references in the article to sources from the federal authorities of the United States and Ukraine. There has been a shift in the focus of the discussion from constructive discourse to aggressive actions by users on the Russian Wikipedia. The persecution by them has also continued on other language versions of Wikipedia where the article was posted. Administrators of the Russian Wikipedia violate neutrality rules. There is an evident conflict of interest. The basis for the article is information from a scientific database, the texts of which are distributed under the CC0 license. It has been supplemented with references to reliable sources such as the United States Agency for International Development, universities, scientific journals, libraries, and media projects. More information is available in the article's discussion. I request that measures be taken to protect the article from attacks by Russian-speaking Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darya2023 ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Several recent edits on this BLP by 107.2.11.14 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) have added strong claims about the subject. I've removed one source that seems inappropriate, but I do not consider myself qualified enough on the subject matter to judge the reliability of the remaining sources. I would appreciate extra eyes on this from editors more familiar with this subject and these kinds of sources to evaluate whether the sources are reliable enough to substantiate the claims made. --Chris | Crazycomputers ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Sarah Jane Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah Jane Baker's page has become a hotbed for T.E.R.F.'s and transphobes to write defamatory and potentially libellous comments about Baker and from poor sources.
user Sweet6970 often misgenders Baker and should be banned from editing this page as they have been warned about their use of gender and commenting on contentious source.
There have also been uses of poor sources to write false information on Baker's page.
This page needs monitoring to make sure information is as neutral as possible. Editors frequently use adjectives to hyperbolise her and her crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
They are deleting her other known achievements that they view as positive despite them being relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Twistflam ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
using poor sources to write false information on Baker’s page’ and ‘
deleting her other known achievements’. No diffs have been provided. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, not all of this refers to you, but there is parts of the talk where you have misgendered on the page but it has then been corrected. The they I have used is a general group of users who are editing the page. I have edited my post for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The page for the author A.J. Finn had a definite advertorial spin and played down a controversy involving Finn in a way that was one-sided. On November 23, I edited the page to make it more balanced and to add in more information about the controversy. User:Accura9—whose user history on the site consisted of solely editing this page and other pages related to Finn's work—has repeatedly reverted my edits, claiming that issues with POV/promotion don't exist when there are citations. Accura9 has reverted my edits to the A.J. Finn article multiple times today, and has also started to go through my contribution history to Wikipedia and revert edits I've made to other pages on the site, unrelated to the A.J. Finn article. Advice from more experienced editors on what to do here? siriaeve ( talk) 15:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this recent edit on BLP Caitlin FitzGerald: [9] regarding a home invastion and kidnapping. I can't seem to find any additional sources to further back this rather shocking claim. I do not doubt this happened to the subject, but should I place a template for a better / additional source? Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 19:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Last week, it was reported that Business Insider has named a new CEO and that Henry Blodget was leaving his position as CEO to become chair of the company. ( https://www.wsj.com/business/media/insider-co-founder-henry-blodget-steps-down-as-ceo-amid-strategy-shift-11a91da7)
Blodget's Wiki page was recently edited with these erroneous statements: "on November 14, 2023, Blodget was fired as the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider, now a general news website." Also, "He no longer contributes articles (see: hit pieces) to Slate, Newsweek, and New York magazine."
Two things of note: 1. Blodget was not "fired" as CEO, and 2. Blodget's journalism pieces to Slate, etc, were not "hit pieces." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
There's an addition error I'm hoping can be fixed:
In the first paragraph of Blodget's Wiki page, it reads "Due to his violations of securities laws and subsequent civil trial conviction, Blodget is permanently banned from involvement in the securities industry."
However, there was no trial, nor any conviction. Rather, there was a settlement, which is addressed correctly further down on Blodget's page, here:
"Fraud allegation and settlement
In 2003, Blodget was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.[7] and settled the charges with a payment of $4 million without admitting or denying the allegations and their underlying facts and findings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Chris Roner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone posted without sourcing, in the middle of an irrelevant paragraph, the name of the subject's three minor children ( here). I've reverted it, but should it be revdeleted for concerns of child protection? Thanks a lot. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The last remark regarding Case closed has no citation and is vague. It is a highly respected work and only disregarded by Conspiracy theorists who often lack evidence or present hearsay as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redonefifty ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There has been a persistent alteration of the spousal information (from Mrs Jayne Ferguson to Dennis Ferguson, a convicted Australian child sex offender who died in 2012.) by 120.19.142.138 on 27 September 2023, 120.17.162.40 on 16 September 2023, and 120.18.61.11 on 6 September 2023. This vandalism is distressing not only to Mr Mark Ferguson but also to his wife. I note the Wikipedia policy is to issue warnings to desist, but this is not practicable with anonymous posts. I respectfully suggest that this page needs to be protected (which I have requested) and would welcome any other advice from this noticeboard regarding appropriate action. Adamm ( talk • contribs)
Editor claiming to be subject of article says name now Djair Parfitt and has deed poll and passport to verify this. Not sure what normal procedure is here. Anyone?-- Egghead06 ( talk) 01:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, this article incorrectly states that Des Rocs is influenced by "Grandson". This is not the case. This is a contemporary who Des Rocs has toured with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLipton88 ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This Texas real estate mogul has made "publishing and politics his new battlegrounds". [1] Should the article include or exclude a sentence summarizing RS reports that he said he was present outside the Capitol during the January 6 United States Capitol attack? [2] There have been reverts and deletions, and talk page discussion may be at an impasse. More contributors to the article could be helpful. Llll5032 ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
BD2412 and I have both been active in the article for some months. Some additional editors' perspectives could perhaps help us arrive at a clearer consensus. Llll5032 ( talk) 04:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to report incorrect information in the Puripol Boonson article. The user [2001:fb1:fb:357e:b5c2:75ce:f95a:6cb3] has repeatedly added incorrect data regarding the size of Puripol Boonson.
The article in question: Puripol Boonson
Reasons for reporting:
- The information added does not conform to reality. - This constitutes a violation of the policies regarding biographies of living persons. - Despite my attempts to resolve the issue by discussing with the contributor, he would not listen. - It should be noted that the contributor provides no source for the added information.
I would like to point out that although the source site is no longer available, the Thai page uses the same source for Puripol Boonson's size. Note that I have not made this change on the Thai page.
I'm also attaching a link to a diff showing the contentious changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Puripol_Boonson&diff=1187637047&oldid=1186388629 .
Please take the necessary steps to correct this error.
Yours faithfully
[CelestialSaphir] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelestialSaphir ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Malathi Nidadavolu ( talk) 13:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)On the page titled, "Nidadavolu Malathi" , under the category spouse, Velcheru Narayana Rao's name has been added, I do not know by whom. I divorced Narayana Rao in 1987, and there is no spoual relationship since. Noting his name as my spouse is misleading and inaccurate. Therefore, I tried to delete his name, but my deletion was by reverted, quoting conflict of interest. I am not sure how COI could occur when the spousal relationship does not exist. I appreciate your help in correcting/updating the information. Thanks, Nidadavolu Malathi
An editor (
User:Beccaynr) is frequently nagging for 3 weeks that attributing the statement "that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as
Mahatma Gandhi
" to
Divya Dwivedi is a
WP:BLP violation.
But
the cited source clearly says: "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India.
" And also "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea
".
Then we also have her own article from 2019 which is
here or you can
click here for full preview. It says "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised. Although many upper caste leaders found the foreign term “Hindu” objectionable. Gandhi also contributed to the later invention and promotion of Hindi with Madan Mohan Malaviya and others. Hindi was explicitly conceived as the language of the “Hindus”.
"
I am sure this not a BLP violation, but Wikipedia process certainly requires us to entertain certain disruptive editing as a part of dispute resolution and this is why I am here. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 ( talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
In 2019, she co-authored an article with Shaj Mohan titled "Courage to Begin" in The Indian Express, she wrote "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised."
Care has been taken to include independent, reliable secondary sources, including academic sources and longform journalism in the article. I have planned to continue working on this article, but this present dispute appears to need attention instead.
I think it would be best to permit Nil Einne to participate further if they wish; from my view, our policies discourage the use of original editor judgment to select a contentious quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay, which appears to have no support for inclusion in independent and reliable secondary sources, as well as significant BLP policy implications based on the context reported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
There are additional issues I have outlined related to the recent attempts, e.g. the placement, attribution, and apparent misrepresentation/misuse of a secondary source and additional BLP policy issues. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources; this discussion also includes WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE policies. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This offers context for the 2019 NDTV interview as reported, by referencing a lengthier joint statement and academic studies, and this context appears to help make the article fair to the subject according BLP policy. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)“There are several academic studies on this much discussed matter. One can refer to D.N. Jha (Looking for a Hindu Identity), Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron (Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity), and the Census of India report of 1921,” she said. “I jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters in an essay published in the Gandhi special issue of The Indian Express, titled ‘Courage to Begin’.”
she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea of a “false Hindu majority”."
“Hindu Right is the corollary of the idea that India is a Hindu majority population and this is a false majority. The Hindu religion was invented in the early 20th century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India…” Dwivedi said on the show that discussed Gandhi and politics."
“In fact, religious minorities have been a victim of this false majority and Gandhi has played a very significant role in its construction. He has helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity…” she said."
Dwivedi added, “He (Gandhi) was one of the many upper caste leaders who constructed this origin for this polity but today we must discard it…”"
IP user making questionable, unsourced edits w/o edit summaries. At least one case of OR, although I didn't check all edits as politics in Bangladesh is not my bailiwick. 65.88.88.56 ( talk) 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Nick McKenzie was involved with a defamation case involving Peter Schiff. The case was settled, Schiff was to receive some money for which McKenzie was not personally liable. Despite this, a swarm of pro-Schiff editors have descended on the page and tried to smear McKenzie however they can. The page is now protected but it's still going on. I don't have the time or energy to deal with this myself so am calling for reinforcements. Thank you. MaskedSinger ( talk) 04:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Some help would be very welcome at Ryan Shore, where the SPA article creator has been repeatedly reverting my removal of unsourced claims of awards. I'm going to pause reverts for now, to avoid WP:3RR. Thanks, Wikishovel ( talk) 09:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This abomination of an article should have been deleted ages ago. Obviously I can't do it. Created by a user whose sole contributions were to create the Max Swarner article and updated since then by at least one dedicated IP user ( [46], [47]). How did it live this long? 65.88.88.56 ( talk) 23:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Michael Pearson has recently passed away. Please see his obituary published in the International Journal of Maritime History https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08438714231208828 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:101:AA60:3142:5D41:635B:8C09 ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The latest information in the article about me regarding the companies that I allegedly lobby is an unproven lie and fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.182.3 ( talk • contribs) 2023-12-05T20:18:11 (UTC)
Following his ousting from OpenAI, there is renewed attention to an allegation against him made by his sister, which is now discussed by some reliable sources. Should it be mentioned? Please discuss at Talk:Sam Altman. Fences& Windows 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I was just made aware that this discussion exists over here:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sam_Altman
To copy the content from over there:
Dispute overview
The dispute started over this diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sam_Altman&diff=next&oldid=1186011017
The issue went to RSN, at the request of (anti-inclusion) editor User:Nil Einne, with numerous additional sources listed as possibilities in case there were issues with the sources in the diff. RSN came back on the side that RS has been met, and the remaining issue to establish is DUE, not RS.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others
However, this has not resolved the conflict, with editors either continuing to pursue RS arguments (despite the RSN), or claiming that accusations are not appropriate BLP, even when labeled as accusations, are on a topic that they admit is serious, and are backed up by RS. Editors also generally do not dispute that the current article has bias problems and reads like hagiography; this was discussed in talk before the current topic came up.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[12] Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
This request is for dispute resolution on the topic of whether "serious allegations" (the serious nature being agreed on by both sides), backed up by RS as determined by RSN, matching the description laid out in the sources and properly attributed to them, warrant a couple sentences in a BLP, or not.
Also requested is a view on whether RS should stop being relitigated now that RSN has weighed in.
Thanks! -- Rei ( talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Caeciliusinhorto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I came across this dispute yesterday, through the discussion at WP:BLPN#Sam Altman. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether we should include some mention of the allegations in the article, but it seems to me that in the existing discussion there is at best no consensus to include them, and the most recent version included in the article (removed in this edit) is clearly in violation of WP:BLPSPS which requires that we "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article".
If Rei can suggest text that they want to include which complies with WP:BLP, then discussion can take place as to whether inclusion is due. Their repeated assertion that the allegations are serious and therefore the content is due for inclusion has no basis in our policy on WP:DUE WEIGHT and is not helping their case. Indeed, one might argue that the seriousness of the allegations means that the threshold for inclusion is higher – these are accusations of criminal behaviour against a living person, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat them carefully and sensitively.
I further note that, contrary to Rei's claim, the RSN discussion did not conclude that the sources they mentioned were reliable. Cortador said that the Mary Sue article was an opinion piece; ActivelyDisinterested said that the previous discussion had not challenged reliability of sources but due weight; JPxG and GretLomborg discussed the appropriate use off opinion pieces. None of them actually comment on whether any of the sources Rei cited, other than the Mary Sue, are reliable for the statements Rei wants to use them for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
See section at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried about use of the word fraudster, in the first sentence of the lead section. Numerous editors have objected to this term, due to its tone issues. The same issue came up at Elizabeth Holmes, the RfC LINK found use of the term problematic and it was removed from that article. Nevertheless, a small number of users have been insistent and adamant in labeling Sam a "fraudster" vs more objective and simple phrasing, like convicted felon (he is convicted of felony fraud and felony conspiracy). -- Green C 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The issue of labels continues to cry out for better guidance, and BLP guidance would seem to be the page to include such guidance. Perhaps there is a better solution, or the Essay on the topic the OP suggested. I think the general idea here is that some guiding text ought to be developed to more quickly resolve these many endless, redundant rhetorical battles. (This would not be the place, specifically, to re-argue the issue of "fraudster" on the Sam Bankman-Fried article, that would be better done on its Talk page.) Per the previous discussion on this page, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_53, I tried to get some text started - roundly rejected, though I was practically begging for modifying/developing edits for weeks. I agree it is not a simple or easy task. Often a way to get started is just to put something down, and immediately notice that it is incorrect. But, it appears that many of you can't get started unless you are presented with an edit war (or the appearance of such); I suspect you deal with such things so often, they are now part of your DNA. Wikipedians are brilliant and great writers (particularly those that patrol such pages as this), and I am sure you all can develop some text. If only we had some means or method to communally and quickly develop text. Bdushaw ( talk) 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to add a section regarding the accusations of Antisemitism to the article on Gigi Hadid, as I believe the standard for notability (over 20 separate news article, public discourse) has been met. Due to the contentiousness regarding the topic and the lack of consensus on the talk page, I would like to have the changes pre-reviewed and improved, particularly regarding the following questions: 1. Which areas lack NPOV? 2. I believe to have corrected the specific criticism regarding the sourcing, did I miss something? 3. Optimal placement: to ensure appropriate weighting, a placement within a section instead of a separate section was recommended. Is that better? Antisemitism Gigi Hadid has been repeatedly criticised for her statements regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine, including accusations of antisemitism. [1] [2] In 2021, Gigi Hadid was accused of „vilifying the Jewish state“ (in reference to Israel) in a controversial full-page New York Times Advertisement. [3] The ad was criticised as inaccurate, including by Singer Dua Lipa, who was also featured. [4] After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, she compared the situation of the Ukrainian population with that of Palestinians and was subsequently criticized in the Israeli media. [5] A post published on its Instagram on October 15, 2023, which described the Israeli government's behaviour as "nothing Jewish", was criticised by the government for its lack of solidarity with the Israeli civilians injured and killed in the Hamas attack; her refusal to condemn Hamas was also criticised . The Israeli government responded directly to Hadid's statement. Alongside a screenshot of Hadid's posting, the government's official account said: "There is nothing heroic about Hamas's massacre of Israelis." [6] [7] [8] She was also accused of spreading misinformation about the Israeli treatment of Palestinian prisoners in the aftermath the Hamas terror attack on 10.07.2023. She later retracted the statement and apologised on Instagram about spreading inaccurate information. [9] [10] [11] Others, such as an article in Rollingstone, have been critical of the conflation between Hadids criticism of Israel and antisemitism, characterising the responses as an overreaction. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FortunateSons ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) As can be seen from the article talk page, this particular discussion falls within the Israel Palestine topic area ("broadly construed") and a non extended confirmed editor may not participate in such discussions, other than to make straightforward edit requests, per WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC) References
|
I've been following the discussion at Talk:Klete Keller regarding non-specific descriptions and also lede content when it comes to "convicted felons". However, I've also seen what has happened on the R. Kelly page; also a convicted felon. Not only does his "short description" state: "American R&B singer and sex offender" but the very first lede sentence reads: "American convicted child sex offender and former singer, songwriter, and record producer." This was something editors at the Klete Keller page discussed at length over with edits and reversions as to what to even call the BLP. They finally settled on "convicted participant". The R. Kelly page even displays a mug shot in the infobox. Danny Masterson's page does not read like R. Kelly's and he was convicted of rape and sentenced to 30 years in prison. What am I missing here? Is "known for" subjective or objective? and how does one decide? Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 14:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
In the case of Danny Masterson, the obvious difference is we have an RfC which even if we ignore any new or inactive editors, seems to strongly lean against such a mention in the first sentence Talk:Danny Masterson#Request for comment on use of "rapist", "sex offender" or "convicted" in lead paragraph and short description with a reasonably high level of participation. Despite it being an explicit part of the RfC, it's somewhat less clear on the short description (as a bunch of editors didn't clearly comment on this) although also seems to strongly lean against it.
We don't have a similar RfC for R. Kelly. Someone could start one although I wouldn't count on a similar result.
As for why the community feels that way, while I can't say for sure, I think there are perceptions differences between the two especially since Kelly has been dodged by accusations since very early in his career and these accusations have involved quite a number of alleged victims. So now that we have some were convictions are secured and it's not simply alleged it's seen almost as significant as his career and so belonging in the lead sentence. It's also possible the ages of the victims has resulted in different perceptions about the seriousness of the offences which I'm not sure I agree with but could be a factor.
It's possible things will change for Masterson as time goes on without any other changes (new convictions or successful appeals) since his acting career will start to fade away.
As for Klete Keller, well I think his crimes are by most definitions significantly less serious than the other two, as shown by his likely sentence which may lead to the view it's less important to add to the lead but also it doesn't matter so much if it is. However he's not helped by the fact he's someone with a significantly lower profile than the other two. I suspect unfortunately he also isn't helped by the fact there's significant outrage over the January 6 United States Capitol attack and continued efforts by politicians and others in the US to push discredited claims of electoral fraud given the (IMO fair) risks this seems to be posing towards US democracy, leading towards very strong pushback against people who are in any way a part of that.
IMO we see similar things in our tendency to tag people as far-right, climate change deniers, conspiracy theorist and perhaps stuff related to vaccines and COVID-19 misinformation although I think the latter two are helped by the fact there isn't a such a commonly accepted term. (There is vaccine sceptic but it isn't really seen in the same way.) I don't think this is a good thing, unfortunately it's also not something that's easy to counter given widespread community support for it.
Nil Einne ( talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue of labels in BLPs has recurred often in articles and on this talk page. Some of us have written a new essay: Wikipedia:Crime labels on the issue (still a work in progress). The essay has a list of RfCs, and other extensive discussions (squabbles), all covering the same points endlessly, on resolving the use of labels in crime. In simple cases, the broad consensus is to avoid the label, in some cases, there may not be an easy answer. My own general view is labels are often not only unfair to the person, they are vague and misleading writing. Cases like Harvey Weinstein and perhaps R.Kelly are situations of extensive or ongoing behavior, hence a label is may be justified. Then there is the issue of encyclopedic language; a label is basically calling someone a name. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
On the BLP Vlada Ekshibarova, 195.158.24.147 made this edit that changed her coach's name to "Yuriy Ekshibarov" in the infobox without any WP:RS. I then reverted this and notified the user on talk. The same IP then reverted it back, and once again failed to supply a RS. I then reverted again and notified the user on talk. I then added a source for the original coach. A little over 2 hours later, a named user, Tradmark1906 (who created an accountant that day and whose sole edit was to the article), made the same edit the IP had made but left my source (which did not mention "Yuriy Ekshibarov" coach at all). I then reverted this again (this being my third reversion) and notified this user as well. 2a02:3030:610:5a3e:5a0:4621:9518:d7e0 then added back "Yuriy Ekshibarov", added this was her brother, failed to provide an RS, and broke the formatting of the article. While I believe I would likely be exempt from WP:3RR because this involves a BLP with unsourced information, I have not, as I would like to avoid any appearance of edit warring and would prefer another user review the situation. Thanks! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
A former Amazon.com senior executive who got caught up in the " Weinstein effect" of the late 2010s. He was accused of sexual harassment, by one person at one event, and fired from Amazon. No charges were every brought against him, and obviously never convicted of anything, and he denies it. What are the BLP rules or best practices for this? There is currently no dispute on the talk page and no edit conflicts, but it seems like a lot of weight over something where basically nothing ever came of it, other than some news stories and he-said/she-said. He did personally know Weinstein and his wife, which probably contributed to a guilt by association, during the news cycle about Weinstein. -- Green C 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
On a related note, doesn't the accuser Isa Dick Hackett fall under WP:BLP1E? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The biography of Emmanuel Lemelson has seen back-and-forth editing that doesn't yet constitute edit warring, but there is a worrisome degree of content gatekeeping that seems to be taking place.
This snapshot between a number of edits is a good example of how two editors in good standing (one of whom is a prolific Wikipedia admin) were unilaterally reverted. I request a wider set of eyes to look at the reliably-sourced content that was reverted:
I am struggling to see how the above reversion (and another taking place in November, this time by another editor who has close association with the first editor) doesn't draw question.
Note, I have been accused by one involved admin of having a conflict of interest, and I'm advised that I should only edit the Talk page of this BLP – both instructions having come without any notification, nor any formal review or investigation. Personally, I don't see the basis, but it doesn’t really bother me -- except for the fact that I think the "involved editor" warning may belong atop the editor who issued it, given that they seemed to come off of a two-week break, just to make another reversion and to announce that I should be restricted to the Talk page. Funny how none of my other edits across Wikipedia are getting this kind of push-back. It's only on one biography where two editors have been persistently reverting for many, many years.
The result is that the content seems to downplay anything negative about the pharmaceutical company and its Congressional helpers, while simultaneously downplaying anything that looks like a courtroom victory for the BLP subject. But let's keep this simple and just focus on the content/sourcing dispute itself. I ask other editors in the BLP space to address this pair of questions:
Thank you, sincerely. - Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Bish and GreenC. To complement your comments, I'd like to provide some history. The article originated as part of the Wiki-PR sock farm (it's included in the list of topics on that page). It first appeared in the User:Sublimeharmony sandbox11 on 17 Jun 2013, here. A related version then appeared in the User:Orthodox2014 sandbox on 22 Apr '14, here as a copy-paste with ref numbers in brackets, but no associated references. Orthodox14 worked on this, adding the refs before pasting it as a live article a couple of days later, see here.
Orthodox2014 ( talk · contribs) was eventually confirmed as a sock of MiamiDolphins3 and indef blocked in Apr '17. See here and here. Note the comment by the CheckUser in the second link: "Surprisingly, Cypresscross is technically Unrelated.--Bbb23 20:21, 12 April 2017". Sounds to me as if Bbb23 expected Cc to be related.
After Orthodox2014, Cypresscross ( talk · contribs) edited the article from Jan '17 until a sudden cessation in Oct '18. There was then a two year gap – which, maybe coincidentally, corresponded with the SEC court case – until a series of 17 IPs(*) made edits starting in Sep '20 after, I think, details of the court case started to appear. There were also edits by DownEastLaw ( talk · contribs) in this time (Dec '21 to Jul '22). In Feb '23 RomaTomatos ( talk · contribs) made 7 edits, and the current complainant, Swiss Mister in NY ( talk · contribs), made their first edit to the article in Mar '23.
Apart from the obvious COI exhibited by all these editors, what is notable is their sequential nature: one stops editing, there's a gap and another starts. There has never been any overlap in their editing and none of them has ever communicated in-Wiki with any other. How unlikely is that? It could be explained as either one person carefully socking, or another organised sock farm with different people taking on the task. However, as GreenC has noted, there are definite similarities in the writing style of all these accounts. It seems to me that there is clearly some intelligence and much persistence behind this ten-year exercise, with an increasing awareness of the need to disguise behaviour – don't edit war, be polite, make edits to other articles, etc. — Small jim 21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
(*) For completeness, here are the 17 COI IPs that consecutively edited the article from Sep '20 to Jan '23:
199.188.176.137 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 50.78.20.21 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.238.165.74 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 63.96.130.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.242.133.223 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 208.59.112.51 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.251.110.231 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 5.171.15.144 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 70.16.214.226 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B128:823A:3180:DDF1:7589:CCF7 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.242.131.36 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B109:84ED:5D38:DE93:DD19:DBF6 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.192.13.8 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.192.10.194 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2400:ADC3:126:C900:60F3:C491:33D8:3C87 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B160:9817:6D5B:ED52:6F94:6C3A ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 12.190.236.71 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS).
GreenC has already noted that some of these IPs originate from the same provider, and I see that the 2600:1000: IPV6 addresses were blocked last month as Template:checkuserblock-wide — Small jim 21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
My my, there have been walls of text theories about me and how I've been "involved" (since 2010, somehow -- what a long-range plan), but not a single answer to the two simple questions:
I'm happy to wait on the answers. Or, I could put them on the Talk page of the biography, if you prefer to ignore them there. Until then, I'll be editing Wikipedia while hoping not to sound "too similar" to other ghosts you've been battling for 8 or 10 years. - Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 02:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I have made an effort to edit this page in the past, but my contributions were unfortunately reversed. Despite this, I remain interested in contributing to the discussion and improving the article's quality. I believe that the changes I suggested were unbiased, balanced, and well-referenced and would have added value to the article. However, I eventually gave up because there was no rational explanation behind the reversals.-- DownEastLaw ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@ GreenC: I really want to try to patch things up with you. Let's step away from suspicions and accusations (I know I have made some not-so-veiled references about you, and you me.) Could we try to just address the key questions? You've "been here 7 years," so can you definitively say whether Law360 is a legitimate and reliable source? Is Barron's a legitimate and reliable source? - Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
For the record, what I want is to indefinitely lock the article from all editing, and use the talk page to propose edits. There is too much uncertainty and clear evidence of intractable COI problems, it's been years-long term abuse. It's now bleeding into other forums and will likely become even more disruptive. -- Green C 17:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I was reviewing above page and found that this draft page was created by a user "Siagoddess", an account created in 2022, another user, Ghafcodes came only specifically to edit this page. User:Greenman declined the draft, again user Siagoddess becomes active and make edits & move page to Mainspace. Most of the references were non-notable and really are not reliable news references. This is surely a bigger group, creating spam pages on Wikipedia. 103.115.206.73 ( talk) 07:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is just an alert that the article Licypriya Kangujam has hit world media because of the subject's action yesterday 11 Dec 2023 at COP28. The article has a history of attempts to focus on Kangujam's father rather than herself. Some watching by BLP people could be useful, though currently this appears stable in terms of editing, with no need (yet) for semi-protection. Boud ( talk) 15:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Seeing as how biographies of the recently deceased are covered by WP:BLP (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead), an IP editor keeps on adding unsourced information to this page repeatedly. The editor has been warned and reported for the behavior as well. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Ethan Slater has reportedly been in a relationship with Ariana Grande for the last few months. This has been widely reported among the entertainment press, but as far as I know neither party has confirmed the relationship. I've been removing it because of this, but IP users keep adding it back. Should this be included, or omitted? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.It's been so widely reported that I don't think it's really a violation of their right to privacy, but again, I agree that NatGertler that it is trivial. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Claudia Mason ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Two accounts claiming to be her representatives are trying to remove information on her and her mother's religion, and the ethnicity and religion of her mother. They are sockpuppeting ( relevant SPI) and their edit summaries border on WP:NLT; however, one of the sources is broken and I don't know if these accounts are legit representatives, so a WP:DOLT analysis seems necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Anyone else feel like the "controversy" section in this article is a little strange? I don't want to come off like a Victor Salva defender because I'm not (never seen any of his works and he's obviously a pedophile), but I strongly smell WP:CHERRY reading it. I think while its contents could be included in the article, it's a bit unprofessionally written as it currently stands, given it started out written by someone who clearly believes Coppola must be taken to task for what he has done. Which is fair enough, but not really WP's job.
For one, Coppola's support of Salva is entirely career-related, yet this section, it's in personal life for some reason. The editor who added it
clearly used a negative tone. And I think some of the sourcing is weak.
The sentence "Coppola was a financial and moral supporter of disgraced film director Victor Salva when Salva was convicted of child sexual abuse and child pornography offences" is only linked to an article that fleetingly mentions Coppola, saying he financed Clownhouse because he liked Salva's amateur films.
The next sentence we see is "Coppola has continued to support Salva financially and professionally throughout the years since." The source just says that Coppola gave Salva $5,000 after he got out of prison, and vouched for him to help him land Jeepers Creepers. So, while sort of true, I think our article is a little vague to make it sound worse than it is.
The third source is an interview with Salva's pedophile victim where he says bad things about Coppola. I think we can agree that, even if the claim is true, it shouldn't be used straight up like it is now. Especially given Coppola denies knowing of any of Salva's crimes during Clownhouse's production (in the second source in this section).
Also, the section titling "controversy" isn't supported, as saying disagreeable things doesn't inherently make a controversy. I would think this probably should not be its own section. Maybe not buried or anything, but regardless of whatever you feel about Coppola thinking Salva should have gotten a second chance in the industry, it clearly is not much of a controversy. Most people don't know or care about it, and it very rarely comes up in reliable sources related to Coppola described as a "controversy".
Anyway, this got long, what do you guys think? -- Quiz shows 02:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned by the lack of, and the poor quality of, sources for some statements in this BLP, in particular the statement that "Pannun has claimed responsibility for various terror incidents in India." The discussion on the talk page is here.
In summary, recent articles seem to suggest opposite information regarding this statement, and the one existing source for this paragraph appears to have questionable factual reliability. I am not trying to say whether the information is wrong or right, as frankly I do not know, but words should certainly be chosen carefully to reflect the controversial subject, and maximal sources should be added to back up these statements, to avoid bias and polarization. For the sentence in question, I suggest to minimally add citation needed, though I think it would be better to add the more recent conflicting (and reputable) sources, to show a more neutral point of view. To me, it feels like elements of People accused of crime and Exceptional claims require exceptional sources must apply here, as Pannun has never been convicted of terrorism, and he also claims a governmental conspiracy to silence him.
I am not an avid Wikipedia editor, so I am not able to make the edit myself, and it is totally possible that I have the wrong viewpoint here, but I felt that it would be highly useful for this to receive some broader comments from the experts. :) Thanks to all for their dedication and work on this wonderful platform & resource! Burner2468 ( talk) 15:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. Apologies if this is not the appropriate place to ask, but I am wanting to know the thoughts of experienced editors about an ongoing dispute, which hasn't been uncivil, about the best way to refer to Laufey in the article. She was born in Iceland to an Icelandic father and a Chinese mother and first established her singing career there but is currently living in the United States. Despite there being no evidence that she has ever lived in China some editors want to describe her as "Chinese-Icelandic" or "Icelandic-Chinese". Based on my reading of WP:ETHNICITY it seems to me that it is best to describe her just by her country of birth which is also where she established her career (she is currently only 23 years of age). Both her nationality and citizenship would appear to be only Icelandic and her ethnic background does not seem to be sufficiently notable to describe her as Chinese-Icelandic or (especially) Icelandic-Chinese. At present the intro describes her as a "singer-songwriter from Icelandic" (claimed by the editor who made it to be an earlier established phrasing but I haven't yet seen any evidence for this claim, the most constant phrasing seems to be "an Icelandic singer-songwriter"). Is this considered an acceptable way to refer to people in terms of their nationality etc? If editors can have a look at the article and editing history and offer any opinions on this matter it would be appreciated. Thanks, Yahboo ( talk) 11:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
In the entry for Edwidge Danticat, in the section "Early Life", in the 2nd paragraph, which begins, "While still in Haiti," there is a reference to "the magazine", but I can't see which magazine that means. Maybe I'm missing something. WikiGeorge2020 ( talk) 13:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
An IP editor editing the article recently appears to be either the article subject or acting on their behalf. They are removing templates without discussion and generally editing as though they own the article. I'm up against 3RR, and so I'm seeking review and input from the community. It appears that the article was originally created in 2007 by a SPA with a username the same as that of a co-author of most of the books listed in the article. The article lacks third-party references and appears to be mostly a resume listing of teaching assignments and the article subject's publications. Other eyes on will be appreciated. Geoff | Who, me? 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Earlier this week Arvind Limbavali ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was put under page protection after two IP's began removing what they called false information. I rewrote most of the 'Controversy' section to improve the tone and remove NPOV language. A new editor K rakshath ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun removing this section again, referring to themselves in the plural and raising concern about this section. They've not responded to any messages on their talk page.
Given that it's a BLP, I'd appreciate some guidance whether their complaint is warranted, or if the section is appropriately sourced and written.
Also pinging @ Annh07 and @ Adakiko.
Celjski Grad ( talk) 16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Buffy Sainte-Marie#RFC regarding order of presentation in the lead could use some editors more knowledgeable about our BLP policy. Skyerise ( talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
This person is non-significant, and does not merit a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.127.246 ( talk) 20:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I started a discussion on Jimbo's talk page regarding an issue with unsourced and/or improperly sourced names in the articles of porn performers on various language Wikipedias, Commons, and Wikidata. In the course of that discussion, I got into a dispute with GRuban over whether or not an Instagram account named "elsajeanofficial" would be considered a reliable source for the allegedly real name of porn performer Elsa Jean. Other than that Instagram account, no reliable secondary sources have been offered which connect the two names. I have removed both the name and the birth date from the article for now, since neither was sourced at all. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 05:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I reverted a possible BLP vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Michael_Corcoran_%28musician%29&diff=1190770675&oldid=1190769233 Cwater1 ( talk) 19:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear wiki-editors. Doug Weller has suggested to me to post it here.
Peter Toennies has brought to my attention that his English biographical wiki page is in pretty bad shape. It is indeed so (e.g., he is not an American scientist to begin with). Previously, he was trying to maintain the page himself, but he understood from communication with some of the editors/users that a person is not supposed to be creating or editing their page themselves. Therefore he asked for my advice (he is 93 and I'm 45 ;). I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor and don't exactly know what the rules are, so I'm trying to figure it out as I go. My current understanding is that Peter Toennies can legitimately have a bio page per the wiki notability criteria for academics ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)). He definitely fulfills the criteria 1,2,3,5,8. Previous edits lacked references, which can be easily provided. I have done so in the tentative edits currently posted in the Talk section of the page. It would be great if you can either unprotect the page for me to bring it to a decent shape or introduce the edits yourself/explain why they are not appropriate. My connection with J. Peter Toennies: I worked in his group in 2001-2005 and he served as the supervisor of my PhD thesis, which I submitted back in 2004. Currently I'm working as a department head at Max-Born-Institute in Berlin and have practically no scientific overlap with Peter anymore. We do communicate occasionally. I appreciate your assistance. With best wishes, Oleg. Kappuzin ( talk) 19:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm looking for some input about a recent dispute on Billy Woods. The article subject is a rapper who is known for concealing his face in public appearances, such as by either covering it or blurring it out in publicity photographs. However, on Commons there exists a photograph of Woods performing onstage. This photo has been repeatedly added to and removed from the article over the past few weeks, eventually leading it to be semi-protected today. The additions and removals have both been performed by multiple parties over time, so I don't see there as being a WP:1AM situation.
The specific input I'm looking for is whether the stable form of the article should include the photo or not. The case for inclusion is a simple one - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. However, Woods is a BLP, and his likeness is potentially identifying information that he generally strives to keep hidden, which makes the situation a bit more complicated for mepr. Does WP:BLPPRIVACY apply to this situation? How should the article subject's wishes in this respect be weighed against NOTCENSORED?
I've been mulling over this and haven't managed to come to a clear decision on what I feel is the right move, so I wanted to bring it before BLPN to potentially get the topic in front of some eyes that are more experienced in this policy area. The semi-protection means that there's likely no urgent need to do anything, but my hope is to achieve a clearer consensus (in either direction) that we can point to if the dispute picks up again. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
if the subject or a rep has been editing WPquestion - there haven't been any explicit statements one way or the other, but based on the edit summaries I've seen, my impression is that all the removals have been performed by editors unaffiliated with the subject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
"my impression is that all the removals have been performed by editors unaffiliated with the subject"
"Remove picture. Not required. NOTCENSORED doesn't mean we can't show a little respect to BLP subjects. (and, yes, there will still be pictures elsewhere on the internet)"
"I just removed his photograph. The subject prefers not having his picture online. Yes, we are UNCENSORED, but we don't need this picture. It costs us nothing to remove this as a courtesy in the spirit, if not exactly the letter, of WP:BLP. And yes, it will still exist elsewhere online: WP:NOTEVERYOTHERSITE."
I have no comment on whether it should make a difference, but why are editors above just speculating on the reasons?
OkayPlayer says
[59] "woods has kept a low and at times mysterious profile throughout, purposefully blurring his face, shunning a sometimes encroaching spotlight. “In the beginning, it was more me wanting to speak freely without being concerned with what I was saying," woods said. "I enjoy my privacy to a certain extent and just had lots of things I was concerned about impacting real life. It kinda just evolved into its own thing. I’m a very friendly and social person but I don’t like to live super publically.’
"
Brookly Magazine
[60] says "with his face hidden or blurred. Unlike the late MF DOOM, though, the disinclination to be photographed isn’t a part of a character he’s playing (woods raps unmasked in live performances), but is rather an attempt to maintain privacy.
" Note that this is partly an interview.
Bandcamp
[61] says "That elusiveness is a reflection of the person who made them. For one thing, Woods is notoriously private. In press photos, he obscures his face. Even his name, Billy Woods, is an alias.
"
Pitchfork
[62] says "(Privacy is important to woods, which is partly why he always covers or digitally alters his face in music videos and press photos.)
"
I have no idea which of these are RS but I think at least some of them are. Also I guess some might argue that any RS which weren't mentioning it in the context of an interview were just speculating themselves. However I'd suggest that applies to a lot of things.
Actually a common complaint which we nearly always dismiss is that this RS didn't provide evidence or how they came to whatever conclusion, except that by and large when an RS is reporting something in their own voice we assume they've done whatever work is needed that they are confident it is true, that's why they are an RS.
Or to put it a different way, while I guess we can't rule out out being a myth that the media just kept repeating without checking or kayfabe they're participating in, again this is not how we generally treat it when an RS has reported something in their own voice.
To be clear there were some sources I found which mentioned the practice without being clear on the reasons which I didn't include, but none of them seemed to suggest it was only for marketing reasons. Instead they said stuff like Rolling Stone
[63] "Enigmatic to a fault, woods has never publicly released his government name and only agrees to photographs if his face is blurred out. (Incredibly, and despite tours across North America and Europe, audiences have mostly complied.)
".
Or The Guardian
[64] "A recording artist for two decades now, he spent the first half of his maverick career languishing in obscurity (and still obscures his face in photos), but remained true to his voice and built a following that appreciates his kaleidoscopic rhymes and bruising worldview.
"
Nil Einne ( talk) 12:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems like the low-quality photo with his face showing has been restored; should it be reverted? Do we have a general agreement here? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 ( correct me if I'm wrong) 06:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I am seeing consensus for removal, so I have removed it (and left an in-article source comment for future reference). Thanks everyone for thoughtful contributions to the discussion. DMacks ( talk) 12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
It should be removed. His whole artistic shtick is not being photographed. And yes, he's notable. Surely there's a royalty-free version with blurring somewhere. He's been around for years. Jondvdsn1 ( talk) 13:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This page sounds and reads very similar to https://thefamilynation.com/mary-berg-husband please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4B59:34F0:7879:8F92:5D8:89D4 ( talk) 15:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in support of the previous correction I enclose a photo of the framed or displayed medals 23 in total. Not sure I worked out how to send photo so please check I did it correct. This has been an uncorrected issue for some time and I will also try and correct IPC site to with a photo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Burton ( talk • contribs)
This [65] has appeared on Pedro Diniz article. I am assuming this kind of thing is removed and scrubbed so as not to be seen in the history? Such a claim would need a source, and a very, very good one. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 12:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Needs eyes. Lots of eyes. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 03:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I tagged this article for some additional attention, hoping that people with more knowledge than I might see it or find it from perusing the attached categories, however the article creator insists on edit-warring the tags/categories out which makes it more difficult for this article to get attention from people who might be in a position to fix it.
I did a thorough analysis on the current sourcing at Talk:Rajeev Ranjan Giri#More analysis and determined it is entirely inadequate at this time, and despite searching both in English and Hindi, was unable to find significant coverage of the subject of the article in independent reliable secondary sources. Would someone else mind having a look at this to see if it is fixable. I would rather not send a new user's article to AFD if it can be avoided, but this clearly needs some attention if it is to stay. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A40C:77E9:C7AF:BFB1 ( talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please help change the profile picture? Thanks! See: talk:Zvi Yehuda Kook#Better profile picture 2A01:6500:B107:A784:F968:D28:80:C2E5 ( talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The section titled "Reception" should be removed. The content is not useful information but controversial political opinion and gossip. The sources cited saying Lex Fridman was born in Tajikstan do not refer to his birth in Tajikstan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonsaiBonzai123 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources", and the sources have already been discussed and agreed reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Business Insider on Lex Fridman. Cheers. Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The early life section is given without citation and halfway through changes it's prose style from the Wikipedia bibliography one. No citation given either, seems copy and pasted from someplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.5.134 ( talk) 00:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I made a trout-slap worthy mistake a while back and wrote that Alexsandr Dyachenko engaged in bad behaviour (not detailing the specific claim due to BLP violations), because an individual with the same name did it. Can we remove a few revisions of the page from visibility (from [67] to [68])? Bremps ... 00:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I get some experienced editors attention on Peter Schiff please. There was a recent court case involving Schiff, Nick McKenzie and McKenzie's employer's which resulted in what WP:RS are calling a settlement. There's a lot of WP:SPA's who take issue with McKenzie's journalism and they've come out to edit biased material into both articles as a consequence of the conclusion of the court case. Nick McKenzie is currently semi-protected, however Peter Schiff isn't and it's not appropriate to call for it at this stage. TarnishedPath talk 00:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on this subject at Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I've started another RfC regarding this subject at Talk:Nick McKenzie#RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 01:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This article and its talk page would benefit from additional eyes. 05:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria ( talk • contribs)
Article contains innacurate and one-sided citation, misrepresentation of source text, and is heavily biased against the author. Source textbook does not call author's a diet a "fad diet" and is not opposed to it but mentions possible outcomes for similar diets clustered in the same table (the only place where name John A. McDougall appears in the entire textbook). Source does not refer to McDougall diet in particular but clustered within a type of diets, some of which are criticized. Referencing done on the article in this form appears malicious and unfair. Choice in wording is also questionable (i.e. "...may lead to a feeling of deprivation.") and amounts to guesswork.
It has been categorized as a low-fat fad diet. The diet rejects all animal products as well as cooking oils, processed food, alcoholic beverages and caffeinated drinks. As with any restrictive high-fiber diet, it may lead to flatulence, possibly poor mineral absorption from excess fiber, and limited food choices that may lead to a feeling of deprivation.[2]
Textbook referenced: 'Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol; Moe, Gaile; Beshgetoor, Donna; Berning, Jacqueline. (2012). Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition, Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill. pages 338-339. ISBN 978-0-07-352272-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teleoid ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I have blanked several personal attacks on an editor that were against policy. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I requested help for improving the BLP of Kalki Bhagawan in September 2023 for long standing problems with this BLP [73], [74]. Also sought third opinion but was rejected because more than 3 editors involved.
The serious, long term issues on this page including biased editing opposed specifically to WP:BLPCOI, WP:BLPTALK, WP:NPOVFACT among other violations are detailed here on the article’s talk page, especially serious violations of BLP rules.
In response to initial complaint received support from NatGertler, following which the 'NPOV' and 'unreliable' templates were added to the page.
All editors who have commented, agree regardless of opinion, that there are issues on the page. However, what is disappointing is that there has been no action by editors to improve this article.
I have familiarized myself with WP:BLP rules and now will start removing contentious BLP text from the article and replacing it with balanced content that meets the WP standards for reliable, published sources. I understand BLP rules require consensus on talk page on contentious contents, but allows contentious content to be first removed. I will specify the clear BLP reason for the contention and create a section where the community can comment.
Therefore, I request other editors to not revert any contentious content that I reasonably remove and instead engage on the talk page for discussion first. After the discussion, whatever content is most in accordance with Wikipedia rules - let it prevail.
I look forward to discussions to engage with the Wikipedia community to help fix the long standing issues with this BLP.
Hibiscus192255 ( talk) 12:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Neri_Oxman#Plagiarism_controversy, your opinion is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Because the discussion appears to be spread over multiple sections on the article talk page, I'll just leave this here.
I'd wager based on the media coverage by WP:RS that this is a significant controversy and thus worth a brief mention in the lead, per WP:MOS/LEAD [75]. Accuastions of plagirism also appear in Claudine Gay's lead, despite her being cleared by Harvard. Really, it could be shortened to note that Oxman faced criticism for accepting donations from Jeffrey Epstein, and allegations of plagiarism in her work including lifting paragraphs from Wikipedia. Both are covered in a volume of reliable sources. Zenomonoz ( talk) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion in the Gay lead was questionable until it affected her career and position. BLPs should not be a showcase for media flashes and allegations. Sections like this about controversies become coatracks for trivia, as is visible in recent edits; now there are multiple paras about responses to responses to the allegations. We can afford to wait for indications of lasting impact. – SJ + 18:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There's a developing news story about this marginally notable former member of a notable rock band. Finding extremely little about him (such sources as there are conflict even on what year he was let go from the band, and a law enforcement agency has mentioned an alias that is the name of a different performer), I first made the article as BLP-compliant as I could, then redirected it to the band. The news story has now progressed: formerly a person of interest in a possible crime, he has now been arrested. The article has been restored and updated, but I still don't find any extended coverage of him. Since the current coverage is related to a crime, I request experienced BLP editors to keep an eye on the article, and also to look at it from the point of view of notability. I don't think it's an AfD candidate, given the recent news stories, but others may disagree on that. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I was wondering if it was okay to leave a footnote at the bottom of his page like I did here [76] as it mentions conflicting sources about his birth year. Many claim 1967. However there's a newspaper from Rome News which was published in 2007 stating that he turned 43 that year. And there's also archived links from the webpage of his old school that have him listed as having graduated in 1982. Which imply a 1964 birth year. I'm asking because I even thought I put in a hidden note saying to read the footnote below before putting down a DOB, editors seem to be ignoring it. From my understanding, references can't just simply be removed or ignored so I put down the references in the footnote next to the birth years that they're claiming. Kcj5062 ( talk) 23:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Edit The article listed above seems to be from 'Actor has encore, with a message, at Central' from the May 28, 2009 Connecticut Post paper. I can't access it since it's behind a paywall, but maybe a user who has access to the Wiki library can.
Just curious why there is nothing regarding the controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.246.216 ( talk) 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The decision to reimagine the characters as such was criticised by mainstream and social media sources as being overly politically correctwhen the cited sources don't really seem to support that. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion on if something she wrote on Instagram should be mentioned in the article. It's Gaza-war related, your opinion is welcome at Talk:Mika_Tosca#She_no_longer_works_at_SAIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that I am the one who extended the current conversation. The article does not seem to be headed towards AfD in any speedy fashion, and I don't want to nominate it myself at this time. Therefore: comment from BLPN regulars would be welcome. There is a lot of text in the talk page, so I've tried to summarize the current situation at Talk:Mika Tosca#Arbitrary break, and sources. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Pretty blatant vandalism. I attached a screenshot of the vandalism. I can't edit the page because I do not have a Wikipedia account. Can someone remove this vandalism? https://imgur.com/a/OZu5Xmj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FC80:7640:1B2:C776:4964:A4DA ( talk) 08:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned about an edit related to the Israel-Palestine conflict that draws associations with a notable British politician David Lammy, and seems to invite the reader to reach conclusions.
I have placed a section about this on the article talk page, but due to the potential severity of this issue I have bought attention to it here: Talk:Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer#Large David Lammy image in Gaza-Israel war section due to LFI support.
I do not have 500 edits under the rules for topic edits, so am leaving this to let more experienced editors know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoThisIsPeter ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Requesting some other eyes on the Joanne Harris article. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores, an ex-student of Kate Clanchy is showing an ongoing interest in documenting negative coverage of writers who have criticised Clanchy (eg. Talk:Joanne Harris#Controversies!), misquoting some sources and applying synthesis when combining others. The current version of the article is using a lot of paywalled Times sources that I'm unable to verify. Belbury ( talk) 11:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The content in question was removed as "contentious and possibly libellous material" by Keyserzozie this morning, prior to their comment above. An IP has since posted to the talk page claiming to be Joanne Harris and saying that the cited and paywalled Times source, which NoorStores was possibly drawing from, was partially retracted by the newspaper because of "provable inaccuracies as well as some potentially defamatory allegations".
Since this may be Harris being guided by the Wikipedia interface to follow WP:COISELF best practice (remove the content then post on BLPN), this could use further review. NoorStores' response to the removal of the content was to restore it, so I've removed it again for now. -- Belbury ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Article contains unreliable informations concerning his personal life. Special:Diff/1196185696 The sources are two unauthorized biographies of Jagger relying extensively on unverified gossips. The informations are also presented as facts although never confirmed by Jagger himself. Therefore, I believe it should be removed. I'd appreciate another opinion on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolamelody123456 ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
POV editing, sources. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:D8E9:8F84:47A1:F1C1 ( talk) 03:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This is the third or fourth 2601... mobile editor, I've seen in these last few days. The others have since been blocked per WP:EVADE & WP:SOCK. Is a range block going to be required? GoodDay ( talk) 03:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I've semi-protected for a limited time. Almost the only edits to the article for the past 5 days have been back-and-forth over a single piece of content. Uncle G ( talk) 10:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
This article of a Filipino celebrity, who has barely reached the age of majority, has been subject to unrelenting fancruft over the years that nobody seems to have had the energy to fix; moreover, the edits are broken up into 1000+ double digit byte changes making it close to impossible to track where the problems really began.
There is an important legal concern to this. The article mentions the name of her siblings, many of which are still minors, as well as celebrity gossip of relationships and various influencer partnerships (as well as actual, literal ships by fans) while everyone involved was still a minor. This is of course not even beginning to touch on the general promotional tone the article is still in.
I have done my best to fix the tone, but to me it still reads like fancruft, uses a lot of gossip rags as sources (much of which is in Tagalog, which I don't know so I can't judge the reliability of) and possibly carries a lot of undue mentions of awards, appearances, partnerships and such. More importantly, I believe there may be information previously included in the article that could require revdelling as it concerns minors, and I don't know which revision to point to because they are all so distributed. Fermiboson ( talk) 15:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
All of that stuff is in this one, too. Uncle G ( talk) 17:07, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
I just reverted 4 distinct BLP issues at Jeffrey Toobin. Of these 4, the question of including "masturbation" in a heading is borderline, more a matter of editorial discretion than of strict policy; but the other 3 were serious BLP issues, including one piece of vandalism that lasted 4 days and one overly confident representation of a source that had persisted since 2019, another since 2021admin only, sry. I would appreciate if others could take a look at whether there are any other BLPvios in this high-profile article, and would also appreciate if an uninvolved admin would consider a long-term or indefinite protection, perhaps under WP:NEWBLPBAN. -- Tamzin[ cetacean needed (they|xe|she) 13:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
[3] Does this addition violate BLP per WP:NOTSCANDAL? It is sourced to an interview from the 1990's with a Sikh separatist leader where he claims that the person in question helped escalate a separatist movement based in India because he wanted revenge for Pakistan's defeat in some war with India which is obvious gossip material. It is further being put on the lead as if its some key detail/summary of the body.
Full discussion with another editor who doesn't agree at
Talk:Khalistan_movement#November Kiu99 ( talk) 15:58, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. Apologies if this is not the most appropriate page to raise this matter, but I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on this article because it has been the target of excessively detailed editing by an almost completely SPA editor (and possibly COI as well) for some time and who has managed to gradually re-add over recent months a considerable amount of excessive detail (and possibly added even more) and POV and peacockery comments which was removed last year when this problem was first noticed. I have rolled the article back to what seemed to be the last good version before the re-adding of the excessive detail. As the editor also has some article ownership issues, which are apparent from his/her comments on the article's talk page, I am expecting further problems due to this. With thanks. Yahboo ( talk) 05:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The section "On the Palestinian Authority and Hamas" cites editorial summary as fact, using tendentious and potentially libelous language not present in original source rather than quoting it directly. Specifically, the cited Jerusalem Post article characterizes a rote description of shock and awe as "praise", a misleading paraphrase which is not supported by the original text. The link to the Jerusalem Post summary should be replaced with a link to the original article on Electronic Intifada, and the tendentious paraphrase should be replaced with direct quotes.
Note that the user who added the unreliable Jerusalem Post citation has already been flagged repeatedly for NPOV violations, so correcting this would not be unprecedented.
Note also that Electronic Intifada has already described the Jerusalem Post summary in question as being related to a coordinated campaign by a former IDF spokesperson trying to convince Columbia University to revoke Massad's tenure. The ongoing conflict surrounding this campaign is noteworthy as it mirrors the previous campaign described under the Columbia Unbecoming section. However, any secondary sources (i.e. sources other than the original Electronic Intifada editorial written by Massad) should be carefully screened for NPOV, which would disqualify both the Jerusalem Post summary and the Electronic Intifada article about the campaign.
Note finally that I deliberately logged out before posting this comment because I don't trust the sorts of people who post content in violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies. (Obviously, logging out before posting this means that I cannot subscribe to this page for updates.) — 68.199.153.120 ( talk) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Well this is quite out of control, and apparently triggered by a news report last month. An edit that preceded the lock Special:Diff/1182110005, and recent talk page posts include Special:Diff/1186583059; Special:Diff/1186583237; Special:Diff/1186582490; Special:Diff/1186581664. It's right that editors discuss discrepancies and work things out, but both the article and talk page comments have been skirting WP:BLP violations, and merit rev/deletion consideration. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 05:18, 24 November 2023 (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.
After posting the article here, an attempt was made to publish it on the Russian-language Wikipedia. As a result, the author of the article was subjected to harassment, and the article became the target of attacks by citizens of the Russian Federation. The likely reason is the author's nationality (Ukrainian) and references in the article to sources from the federal authorities of the United States and Ukraine. There has been a shift in the focus of the discussion from constructive discourse to aggressive actions by users on the Russian Wikipedia. The persecution by them has also continued on other language versions of Wikipedia where the article was posted. Administrators of the Russian Wikipedia violate neutrality rules. There is an evident conflict of interest. The basis for the article is information from a scientific database, the texts of which are distributed under the CC0 license. It has been supplemented with references to reliable sources such as the United States Agency for International Development, universities, scientific journals, libraries, and media projects. More information is available in the article's discussion. I request that measures be taken to protect the article from attacks by Russian-speaking Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darya2023 ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Several recent edits on this BLP by 107.2.11.14 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS) have added strong claims about the subject. I've removed one source that seems inappropriate, but I do not consider myself qualified enough on the subject matter to judge the reliability of the remaining sources. I would appreciate extra eyes on this from editors more familiar with this subject and these kinds of sources to evaluate whether the sources are reliable enough to substantiate the claims made. --Chris | Crazycomputers ( talk) 19:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Sarah Jane Baker ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah Jane Baker's page has become a hotbed for T.E.R.F.'s and transphobes to write defamatory and potentially libellous comments about Baker and from poor sources.
user Sweet6970 often misgenders Baker and should be banned from editing this page as they have been warned about their use of gender and commenting on contentious source.
There have also been uses of poor sources to write false information on Baker's page.
This page needs monitoring to make sure information is as neutral as possible. Editors frequently use adjectives to hyperbolise her and her crimes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
They are deleting her other known achievements that they view as positive despite them being relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam ( talk • contribs) 15:32, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Twistflam ( talk) 17:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
using poor sources to write false information on Baker’s page’ and ‘
deleting her other known achievements’. No diffs have been provided. Sweet6970 ( talk) 16:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, not all of this refers to you, but there is parts of the talk where you have misgendered on the page but it has then been corrected. The they I have used is a general group of users who are editing the page. I have edited my post for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twistflam ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
The page for the author A.J. Finn had a definite advertorial spin and played down a controversy involving Finn in a way that was one-sided. On November 23, I edited the page to make it more balanced and to add in more information about the controversy. User:Accura9—whose user history on the site consisted of solely editing this page and other pages related to Finn's work—has repeatedly reverted my edits, claiming that issues with POV/promotion don't exist when there are citations. Accura9 has reverted my edits to the A.J. Finn article multiple times today, and has also started to go through my contribution history to Wikipedia and revert edits I've made to other pages on the site, unrelated to the A.J. Finn article. Advice from more experienced editors on what to do here? siriaeve ( talk) 15:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I noticed this recent edit on BLP Caitlin FitzGerald: [9] regarding a home invastion and kidnapping. I can't seem to find any additional sources to further back this rather shocking claim. I do not doubt this happened to the subject, but should I place a template for a better / additional source? Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 19:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Last week, it was reported that Business Insider has named a new CEO and that Henry Blodget was leaving his position as CEO to become chair of the company. ( https://www.wsj.com/business/media/insider-co-founder-henry-blodget-steps-down-as-ceo-amid-strategy-shift-11a91da7)
Blodget's Wiki page was recently edited with these erroneous statements: "on November 14, 2023, Blodget was fired as the CEO and editor-in-chief of Business Insider, now a general news website." Also, "He no longer contributes articles (see: hit pieces) to Slate, Newsweek, and New York magazine."
Two things of note: 1. Blodget was not "fired" as CEO, and 2. Blodget's journalism pieces to Slate, etc, were not "hit pieces." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr ( talk • contribs) 00:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
There's an addition error I'm hoping can be fixed:
In the first paragraph of Blodget's Wiki page, it reads "Due to his violations of securities laws and subsequent civil trial conviction, Blodget is permanently banned from involvement in the securities industry."
However, there was no trial, nor any conviction. Rather, there was a settlement, which is addressed correctly further down on Blodget's page, here:
"Fraud allegation and settlement
In 2003, Blodget was charged with civil securities fraud by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.[7] and settled the charges with a payment of $4 million without admitting or denying the allegations and their underlying facts and findings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarioNateRuizJr ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Chris Roner ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Someone posted without sourcing, in the middle of an irrelevant paragraph, the name of the subject's three minor children ( here). I've reverted it, but should it be revdeleted for concerns of child protection? Thanks a lot. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 01:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
The last remark regarding Case closed has no citation and is vague. It is a highly respected work and only disregarded by Conspiracy theorists who often lack evidence or present hearsay as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redonefifty ( talk • contribs) 03:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
There has been a persistent alteration of the spousal information (from Mrs Jayne Ferguson to Dennis Ferguson, a convicted Australian child sex offender who died in 2012.) by 120.19.142.138 on 27 September 2023, 120.17.162.40 on 16 September 2023, and 120.18.61.11 on 6 September 2023. This vandalism is distressing not only to Mr Mark Ferguson but also to his wife. I note the Wikipedia policy is to issue warnings to desist, but this is not practicable with anonymous posts. I respectfully suggest that this page needs to be protected (which I have requested) and would welcome any other advice from this noticeboard regarding appropriate action. Adamm ( talk • contribs)
Editor claiming to be subject of article says name now Djair Parfitt and has deed poll and passport to verify this. Not sure what normal procedure is here. Anyone?-- Egghead06 ( talk) 01:58, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi there, this article incorrectly states that Des Rocs is influenced by "Grandson". This is not the case. This is a contemporary who Des Rocs has toured with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlexLipton88 ( talk • contribs) 16:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
This Texas real estate mogul has made "publishing and politics his new battlegrounds". [1] Should the article include or exclude a sentence summarizing RS reports that he said he was present outside the Capitol during the January 6 United States Capitol attack? [2] There have been reverts and deletions, and talk page discussion may be at an impasse. More contributors to the article could be helpful. Llll5032 ( talk) 20:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
BD2412 and I have both been active in the article for some months. Some additional editors' perspectives could perhaps help us arrive at a clearer consensus. Llll5032 ( talk) 04:00, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I would like to report incorrect information in the Puripol Boonson article. The user [2001:fb1:fb:357e:b5c2:75ce:f95a:6cb3] has repeatedly added incorrect data regarding the size of Puripol Boonson.
The article in question: Puripol Boonson
Reasons for reporting:
- The information added does not conform to reality. - This constitutes a violation of the policies regarding biographies of living persons. - Despite my attempts to resolve the issue by discussing with the contributor, he would not listen. - It should be noted that the contributor provides no source for the added information.
I would like to point out that although the source site is no longer available, the Thai page uses the same source for Puripol Boonson's size. Note that I have not made this change on the Thai page.
I'm also attaching a link to a diff showing the contentious changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Puripol_Boonson&diff=1187637047&oldid=1186388629 .
Please take the necessary steps to correct this error.
Yours faithfully
[CelestialSaphir] — Preceding unsigned comment added by CelestialSaphir ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
Malathi Nidadavolu ( talk) 13:43, 4 December 2023 (UTC)On the page titled, "Nidadavolu Malathi" , under the category spouse, Velcheru Narayana Rao's name has been added, I do not know by whom. I divorced Narayana Rao in 1987, and there is no spoual relationship since. Noting his name as my spouse is misleading and inaccurate. Therefore, I tried to delete his name, but my deletion was by reverted, quoting conflict of interest. I am not sure how COI could occur when the spousal relationship does not exist. I appreciate your help in correcting/updating the information. Thanks, Nidadavolu Malathi
An editor (
User:Beccaynr) is frequently nagging for 3 weeks that attributing the statement "that Hinduism was invented in the early 20th century, by upper caste leaders such as
Mahatma Gandhi
" to
Divya Dwivedi is a
WP:BLP violation.
But
the cited source clearly says: "Divya Dwivedi says studies prove Mahatma Gandhi was one of the leaders who constructed the idea of ‘false Hindu majority’ in India.
" And also "she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea
".
Then we also have her own article from 2019 which is
here or you can
click here for full preview. It says "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised. Although many upper caste leaders found the foreign term “Hindu” objectionable. Gandhi also contributed to the later invention and promotion of Hindi with Madan Mohan Malaviya and others. Hindi was explicitly conceived as the language of the “Hindus”.
"
I am sure this not a BLP violation, but Wikipedia process certainly requires us to entertain certain disruptive editing as a part of dispute resolution and this is why I am here. 2402:A00:401:7C3E:7CB1:4DA9:15DB:C0E5 ( talk) 07:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
In 2019, she co-authored an article with Shaj Mohan titled "Courage to Begin" in The Indian Express, she wrote "Gandhi had an important role in the invention of “Hindu” religion. He understood that if the majority of the population, the lower castes, were not let into the upper-caste temples, a common religion called Hindu would not be legally recognised."
Care has been taken to include independent, reliable secondary sources, including academic sources and longform journalism in the article. I have planned to continue working on this article, but this present dispute appears to need attention instead.
I think it would be best to permit Nil Einne to participate further if they wish; from my view, our policies discourage the use of original editor judgment to select a contentious quote from the co-authored Indian Express essay, which appears to have no support for inclusion in independent and reliable secondary sources, as well as significant BLP policy implications based on the context reported by multiple independent and reliable secondary sources.
There are additional issues I have outlined related to the recent attempts, e.g. the placement, attribution, and apparent misrepresentation/misuse of a secondary source and additional BLP policy issues. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources; this discussion also includes WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE policies. Beccaynr ( talk) 18:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
This offers context for the 2019 NDTV interview as reported, by referencing a lengthier joint statement and academic studies, and this context appears to help make the article fair to the subject according BLP policy. Beccaynr ( talk) 19:56, 1 December 2023 (UTC)“There are several academic studies on this much discussed matter. One can refer to D.N. Jha (Looking for a Hindu Identity), Vasudha Dalmia and Heinrich von Stietencron (Representing Hinduism: The Construction of Religious Traditions and National Identity), and the Census of India report of 1921,” she said. “I jointly made a lengthier statement on these matters in an essay published in the Gandhi special issue of The Indian Express, titled ‘Courage to Begin’.”
she questioned the origins of Hinduism and stated that Mahatma Gandhi helped construct the idea of a “false Hindu majority”."
“Hindu Right is the corollary of the idea that India is a Hindu majority population and this is a false majority. The Hindu religion was invented in the early 20th century in order to hide the fact that the lower caste people are the real majority of India…” Dwivedi said on the show that discussed Gandhi and politics."
“In fact, religious minorities have been a victim of this false majority and Gandhi has played a very significant role in its construction. He has helped construct a false Hindu majority and a new Hindu identity…” she said."
Dwivedi added, “He (Gandhi) was one of the many upper caste leaders who constructed this origin for this polity but today we must discard it…”"
IP user making questionable, unsourced edits w/o edit summaries. At least one case of OR, although I didn't check all edits as politics in Bangladesh is not my bailiwick. 65.88.88.56 ( talk) 19:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Nick McKenzie was involved with a defamation case involving Peter Schiff. The case was settled, Schiff was to receive some money for which McKenzie was not personally liable. Despite this, a swarm of pro-Schiff editors have descended on the page and tried to smear McKenzie however they can. The page is now protected but it's still going on. I don't have the time or energy to deal with this myself so am calling for reinforcements. Thank you. MaskedSinger ( talk) 04:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
Some help would be very welcome at Ryan Shore, where the SPA article creator has been repeatedly reverting my removal of unsourced claims of awards. I'm going to pause reverts for now, to avoid WP:3RR. Thanks, Wikishovel ( talk) 09:03, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
This abomination of an article should have been deleted ages ago. Obviously I can't do it. Created by a user whose sole contributions were to create the Max Swarner article and updated since then by at least one dedicated IP user ( [46], [47]). How did it live this long? 65.88.88.56 ( talk) 23:46, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Michael Pearson has recently passed away. Please see his obituary published in the International Journal of Maritime History https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08438714231208828 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:101:AA60:3142:5D41:635B:8C09 ( talk) 05:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
The latest information in the article about me regarding the companies that I allegedly lobby is an unproven lie and fantasy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.3.182.3 ( talk • contribs) 2023-12-05T20:18:11 (UTC)
Following his ousting from OpenAI, there is renewed attention to an allegation against him made by his sister, which is now discussed by some reliable sources. Should it be mentioned? Please discuss at Talk:Sam Altman. Fences& Windows 17:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I was just made aware that this discussion exists over here:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Sam_Altman
To copy the content from over there:
Dispute overview
The dispute started over this diff:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sam_Altman&diff=next&oldid=1186011017
The issue went to RSN, at the request of (anti-inclusion) editor User:Nil Einne, with numerous additional sources listed as possibilities in case there were issues with the sources in the diff. RSN came back on the side that RS has been met, and the remaining issue to establish is DUE, not RS.
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others
However, this has not resolved the conflict, with editors either continuing to pursue RS arguments (despite the RSN), or claiming that accusations are not appropriate BLP, even when labeled as accusations, are on a topic that they admit is serious, and are backed up by RS. Editors also generally do not dispute that the current article has bias problems and reads like hagiography; this was discussed in talk before the current topic came up.
How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here?
[12] Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Mary_Sue_(in_context),_others
How do you think we can help resolve the dispute?
This request is for dispute resolution on the topic of whether "serious allegations" (the serious nature being agreed on by both sides), backed up by RS as determined by RSN, matching the description laid out in the sources and properly attributed to them, warrant a couple sentences in a BLP, or not.
Also requested is a view on whether RS should stop being relitigated now that RSN has weighed in.
Thanks! -- Rei ( talk) 17:18, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Caeciliusinhorto Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. I came across this dispute yesterday, through the discussion at WP:BLPN#Sam Altman. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether we should include some mention of the allegations in the article, but it seems to me that in the existing discussion there is at best no consensus to include them, and the most recent version included in the article (removed in this edit) is clearly in violation of WP:BLPSPS which requires that we "Never use self-published sources ... as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article".
If Rei can suggest text that they want to include which complies with WP:BLP, then discussion can take place as to whether inclusion is due. Their repeated assertion that the allegations are serious and therefore the content is due for inclusion has no basis in our policy on WP:DUE WEIGHT and is not helping their case. Indeed, one might argue that the seriousness of the allegations means that the threshold for inclusion is higher – these are accusations of criminal behaviour against a living person, and Wikipedia has a responsibility to treat them carefully and sensitively.
I further note that, contrary to Rei's claim, the RSN discussion did not conclude that the sources they mentioned were reliable. Cortador said that the Mary Sue article was an opinion piece; ActivelyDisinterested said that the previous discussion had not challenged reliability of sources but due weight; JPxG and GretLomborg discussed the appropriate use off opinion pieces. None of them actually comment on whether any of the sources Rei cited, other than the Mary Sue, are reliable for the statements Rei wants to use them for. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
See section at Talk:Sam_Bankman-Fried about use of the word fraudster, in the first sentence of the lead section. Numerous editors have objected to this term, due to its tone issues. The same issue came up at Elizabeth Holmes, the RfC LINK found use of the term problematic and it was removed from that article. Nevertheless, a small number of users have been insistent and adamant in labeling Sam a "fraudster" vs more objective and simple phrasing, like convicted felon (he is convicted of felony fraud and felony conspiracy). -- Green C 01:47, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The issue of labels continues to cry out for better guidance, and BLP guidance would seem to be the page to include such guidance. Perhaps there is a better solution, or the Essay on the topic the OP suggested. I think the general idea here is that some guiding text ought to be developed to more quickly resolve these many endless, redundant rhetorical battles. (This would not be the place, specifically, to re-argue the issue of "fraudster" on the Sam Bankman-Fried article, that would be better done on its Talk page.) Per the previous discussion on this page, Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_53, I tried to get some text started - roundly rejected, though I was practically begging for modifying/developing edits for weeks. I agree it is not a simple or easy task. Often a way to get started is just to put something down, and immediately notice that it is incorrect. But, it appears that many of you can't get started unless you are presented with an edit war (or the appearance of such); I suspect you deal with such things so often, they are now part of your DNA. Wikipedians are brilliant and great writers (particularly those that patrol such pages as this), and I am sure you all can develop some text. If only we had some means or method to communally and quickly develop text. Bdushaw ( talk) 11:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
WP:ARBECR. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 19:30, 9 December 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I would like to add a section regarding the accusations of Antisemitism to the article on Gigi Hadid, as I believe the standard for notability (over 20 separate news article, public discourse) has been met. Due to the contentiousness regarding the topic and the lack of consensus on the talk page, I would like to have the changes pre-reviewed and improved, particularly regarding the following questions: 1. Which areas lack NPOV? 2. I believe to have corrected the specific criticism regarding the sourcing, did I miss something? 3. Optimal placement: to ensure appropriate weighting, a placement within a section instead of a separate section was recommended. Is that better? Antisemitism Gigi Hadid has been repeatedly criticised for her statements regarding the conflict between Israel and Palestine, including accusations of antisemitism. [1] [2] In 2021, Gigi Hadid was accused of „vilifying the Jewish state“ (in reference to Israel) in a controversial full-page New York Times Advertisement. [3] The ad was criticised as inaccurate, including by Singer Dua Lipa, who was also featured. [4] After Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, she compared the situation of the Ukrainian population with that of Palestinians and was subsequently criticized in the Israeli media. [5] A post published on its Instagram on October 15, 2023, which described the Israeli government's behaviour as "nothing Jewish", was criticised by the government for its lack of solidarity with the Israeli civilians injured and killed in the Hamas attack; her refusal to condemn Hamas was also criticised . The Israeli government responded directly to Hadid's statement. Alongside a screenshot of Hadid's posting, the government's official account said: "There is nothing heroic about Hamas's massacre of Israelis." [6] [7] [8] She was also accused of spreading misinformation about the Israeli treatment of Palestinian prisoners in the aftermath the Hamas terror attack on 10.07.2023. She later retracted the statement and apologised on Instagram about spreading inaccurate information. [9] [10] [11] Others, such as an article in Rollingstone, have been critical of the conflation between Hadids criticism of Israel and antisemitism, characterising the responses as an overreaction. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by FortunateSons ( talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 December 2023 (UTC) As can be seen from the article talk page, this particular discussion falls within the Israel Palestine topic area ("broadly construed") and a non extended confirmed editor may not participate in such discussions, other than to make straightforward edit requests, per WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:27, 9 December 2023 (UTC) References
|
I've been following the discussion at Talk:Klete Keller regarding non-specific descriptions and also lede content when it comes to "convicted felons". However, I've also seen what has happened on the R. Kelly page; also a convicted felon. Not only does his "short description" state: "American R&B singer and sex offender" but the very first lede sentence reads: "American convicted child sex offender and former singer, songwriter, and record producer." This was something editors at the Klete Keller page discussed at length over with edits and reversions as to what to even call the BLP. They finally settled on "convicted participant". The R. Kelly page even displays a mug shot in the infobox. Danny Masterson's page does not read like R. Kelly's and he was convicted of rape and sentenced to 30 years in prison. What am I missing here? Is "known for" subjective or objective? and how does one decide? Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 14:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
In the case of Danny Masterson, the obvious difference is we have an RfC which even if we ignore any new or inactive editors, seems to strongly lean against such a mention in the first sentence Talk:Danny Masterson#Request for comment on use of "rapist", "sex offender" or "convicted" in lead paragraph and short description with a reasonably high level of participation. Despite it being an explicit part of the RfC, it's somewhat less clear on the short description (as a bunch of editors didn't clearly comment on this) although also seems to strongly lean against it.
We don't have a similar RfC for R. Kelly. Someone could start one although I wouldn't count on a similar result.
As for why the community feels that way, while I can't say for sure, I think there are perceptions differences between the two especially since Kelly has been dodged by accusations since very early in his career and these accusations have involved quite a number of alleged victims. So now that we have some were convictions are secured and it's not simply alleged it's seen almost as significant as his career and so belonging in the lead sentence. It's also possible the ages of the victims has resulted in different perceptions about the seriousness of the offences which I'm not sure I agree with but could be a factor.
It's possible things will change for Masterson as time goes on without any other changes (new convictions or successful appeals) since his acting career will start to fade away.
As for Klete Keller, well I think his crimes are by most definitions significantly less serious than the other two, as shown by his likely sentence which may lead to the view it's less important to add to the lead but also it doesn't matter so much if it is. However he's not helped by the fact he's someone with a significantly lower profile than the other two. I suspect unfortunately he also isn't helped by the fact there's significant outrage over the January 6 United States Capitol attack and continued efforts by politicians and others in the US to push discredited claims of electoral fraud given the (IMO fair) risks this seems to be posing towards US democracy, leading towards very strong pushback against people who are in any way a part of that.
IMO we see similar things in our tendency to tag people as far-right, climate change deniers, conspiracy theorist and perhaps stuff related to vaccines and COVID-19 misinformation although I think the latter two are helped by the fact there isn't a such a commonly accepted term. (There is vaccine sceptic but it isn't really seen in the same way.) I don't think this is a good thing, unfortunately it's also not something that's easy to counter given widespread community support for it.
Nil Einne ( talk) 09:35, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
The issue of labels in BLPs has recurred often in articles and on this talk page. Some of us have written a new essay: Wikipedia:Crime labels on the issue (still a work in progress). The essay has a list of RfCs, and other extensive discussions (squabbles), all covering the same points endlessly, on resolving the use of labels in crime. In simple cases, the broad consensus is to avoid the label, in some cases, there may not be an easy answer. My own general view is labels are often not only unfair to the person, they are vague and misleading writing. Cases like Harvey Weinstein and perhaps R.Kelly are situations of extensive or ongoing behavior, hence a label is may be justified. Then there is the issue of encyclopedic language; a label is basically calling someone a name. Bdushaw ( talk) 15:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
On the BLP Vlada Ekshibarova, 195.158.24.147 made this edit that changed her coach's name to "Yuriy Ekshibarov" in the infobox without any WP:RS. I then reverted this and notified the user on talk. The same IP then reverted it back, and once again failed to supply a RS. I then reverted again and notified the user on talk. I then added a source for the original coach. A little over 2 hours later, a named user, Tradmark1906 (who created an accountant that day and whose sole edit was to the article), made the same edit the IP had made but left my source (which did not mention "Yuriy Ekshibarov" coach at all). I then reverted this again (this being my third reversion) and notified this user as well. 2a02:3030:610:5a3e:5a0:4621:9518:d7e0 then added back "Yuriy Ekshibarov", added this was her brother, failed to provide an RS, and broke the formatting of the article. While I believe I would likely be exempt from WP:3RR because this involves a BLP with unsourced information, I have not, as I would like to avoid any appearance of edit warring and would prefer another user review the situation. Thanks! Wikipedialuva ( talk) 02:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
A former Amazon.com senior executive who got caught up in the " Weinstein effect" of the late 2010s. He was accused of sexual harassment, by one person at one event, and fired from Amazon. No charges were every brought against him, and obviously never convicted of anything, and he denies it. What are the BLP rules or best practices for this? There is currently no dispute on the talk page and no edit conflicts, but it seems like a lot of weight over something where basically nothing ever came of it, other than some news stories and he-said/she-said. He did personally know Weinstein and his wife, which probably contributed to a guilt by association, during the news cycle about Weinstein. -- Green C 00:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
On a related note, doesn't the accuser Isa Dick Hackett fall under WP:BLP1E? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
The biography of Emmanuel Lemelson has seen back-and-forth editing that doesn't yet constitute edit warring, but there is a worrisome degree of content gatekeeping that seems to be taking place.
This snapshot between a number of edits is a good example of how two editors in good standing (one of whom is a prolific Wikipedia admin) were unilaterally reverted. I request a wider set of eyes to look at the reliably-sourced content that was reverted:
I am struggling to see how the above reversion (and another taking place in November, this time by another editor who has close association with the first editor) doesn't draw question.
Note, I have been accused by one involved admin of having a conflict of interest, and I'm advised that I should only edit the Talk page of this BLP – both instructions having come without any notification, nor any formal review or investigation. Personally, I don't see the basis, but it doesn’t really bother me -- except for the fact that I think the "involved editor" warning may belong atop the editor who issued it, given that they seemed to come off of a two-week break, just to make another reversion and to announce that I should be restricted to the Talk page. Funny how none of my other edits across Wikipedia are getting this kind of push-back. It's only on one biography where two editors have been persistently reverting for many, many years.
The result is that the content seems to downplay anything negative about the pharmaceutical company and its Congressional helpers, while simultaneously downplaying anything that looks like a courtroom victory for the BLP subject. But let's keep this simple and just focus on the content/sourcing dispute itself. I ask other editors in the BLP space to address this pair of questions:
Thank you, sincerely. - Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Bish and GreenC. To complement your comments, I'd like to provide some history. The article originated as part of the Wiki-PR sock farm (it's included in the list of topics on that page). It first appeared in the User:Sublimeharmony sandbox11 on 17 Jun 2013, here. A related version then appeared in the User:Orthodox2014 sandbox on 22 Apr '14, here as a copy-paste with ref numbers in brackets, but no associated references. Orthodox14 worked on this, adding the refs before pasting it as a live article a couple of days later, see here.
Orthodox2014 ( talk · contribs) was eventually confirmed as a sock of MiamiDolphins3 and indef blocked in Apr '17. See here and here. Note the comment by the CheckUser in the second link: "Surprisingly, Cypresscross is technically Unrelated.--Bbb23 20:21, 12 April 2017". Sounds to me as if Bbb23 expected Cc to be related.
After Orthodox2014, Cypresscross ( talk · contribs) edited the article from Jan '17 until a sudden cessation in Oct '18. There was then a two year gap – which, maybe coincidentally, corresponded with the SEC court case – until a series of 17 IPs(*) made edits starting in Sep '20 after, I think, details of the court case started to appear. There were also edits by DownEastLaw ( talk · contribs) in this time (Dec '21 to Jul '22). In Feb '23 RomaTomatos ( talk · contribs) made 7 edits, and the current complainant, Swiss Mister in NY ( talk · contribs), made their first edit to the article in Mar '23.
Apart from the obvious COI exhibited by all these editors, what is notable is their sequential nature: one stops editing, there's a gap and another starts. There has never been any overlap in their editing and none of them has ever communicated in-Wiki with any other. How unlikely is that? It could be explained as either one person carefully socking, or another organised sock farm with different people taking on the task. However, as GreenC has noted, there are definite similarities in the writing style of all these accounts. It seems to me that there is clearly some intelligence and much persistence behind this ten-year exercise, with an increasing awareness of the need to disguise behaviour – don't edit war, be polite, make edits to other articles, etc. — Small jim 21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
(*) For completeness, here are the 17 COI IPs that consecutively edited the article from Sep '20 to Jan '23:
199.188.176.137 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 50.78.20.21 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 216.238.165.74 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 63.96.130.72 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.242.133.223 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 208.59.112.51 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 173.251.110.231 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 5.171.15.144 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 70.16.214.226 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B128:823A:3180:DDF1:7589:CCF7 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.242.131.36 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B109:84ED:5D38:DE93:DD19:DBF6 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.192.13.8 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 174.192.10.194 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2400:ADC3:126:C900:60F3:C491:33D8:3C87 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 2600:1000:B160:9817:6D5B:ED52:6F94:6C3A ( talk · contribs · WHOIS), 12.190.236.71 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS).
GreenC has already noted that some of these IPs originate from the same provider, and I see that the 2600:1000: IPV6 addresses were blocked last month as Template:checkuserblock-wide — Small jim 21:24, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
My my, there have been walls of text theories about me and how I've been "involved" (since 2010, somehow -- what a long-range plan), but not a single answer to the two simple questions:
I'm happy to wait on the answers. Or, I could put them on the Talk page of the biography, if you prefer to ignore them there. Until then, I'll be editing Wikipedia while hoping not to sound "too similar" to other ghosts you've been battling for 8 or 10 years. - Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 02:10, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
I have made an effort to edit this page in the past, but my contributions were unfortunately reversed. Despite this, I remain interested in contributing to the discussion and improving the article's quality. I believe that the changes I suggested were unbiased, balanced, and well-referenced and would have added value to the article. However, I eventually gave up because there was no rational explanation behind the reversals.-- DownEastLaw ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
@ GreenC: I really want to try to patch things up with you. Let's step away from suspicions and accusations (I know I have made some not-so-veiled references about you, and you me.) Could we try to just address the key questions? You've "been here 7 years," so can you definitively say whether Law360 is a legitimate and reliable source? Is Barron's a legitimate and reliable source? - Swiss Mister in NY ( talk) 15:04, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
For the record, what I want is to indefinitely lock the article from all editing, and use the talk page to propose edits. There is too much uncertainty and clear evidence of intractable COI problems, it's been years-long term abuse. It's now bleeding into other forums and will likely become even more disruptive. -- Green C 17:05, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
I was reviewing above page and found that this draft page was created by a user "Siagoddess", an account created in 2022, another user, Ghafcodes came only specifically to edit this page. User:Greenman declined the draft, again user Siagoddess becomes active and make edits & move page to Mainspace. Most of the references were non-notable and really are not reliable news references. This is surely a bigger group, creating spam pages on Wikipedia. 103.115.206.73 ( talk) 07:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
This is just an alert that the article Licypriya Kangujam has hit world media because of the subject's action yesterday 11 Dec 2023 at COP28. The article has a history of attempts to focus on Kangujam's father rather than herself. Some watching by BLP people could be useful, though currently this appears stable in terms of editing, with no need (yet) for semi-protection. Boud ( talk) 15:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Seeing as how biographies of the recently deceased are covered by WP:BLP (see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead), an IP editor keeps on adding unsourced information to this page repeatedly. The editor has been warned and reported for the behavior as well. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 04:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Ethan Slater has reportedly been in a relationship with Ariana Grande for the last few months. This has been widely reported among the entertainment press, but as far as I know neither party has confirmed the relationship. I've been removing it because of this, but IP users keep adding it back. Should this be included, or omitted? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy.It's been so widely reported that I don't think it's really a violation of their right to privacy, but again, I agree that NatGertler that it is trivial. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Claudia Mason ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Two accounts claiming to be her representatives are trying to remove information on her and her mother's religion, and the ethnicity and religion of her mother. They are sockpuppeting ( relevant SPI) and their edit summaries border on WP:NLT; however, one of the sources is broken and I don't know if these accounts are legit representatives, so a WP:DOLT analysis seems necessary. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Anyone else feel like the "controversy" section in this article is a little strange? I don't want to come off like a Victor Salva defender because I'm not (never seen any of his works and he's obviously a pedophile), but I strongly smell WP:CHERRY reading it. I think while its contents could be included in the article, it's a bit unprofessionally written as it currently stands, given it started out written by someone who clearly believes Coppola must be taken to task for what he has done. Which is fair enough, but not really WP's job.
For one, Coppola's support of Salva is entirely career-related, yet this section, it's in personal life for some reason. The editor who added it
clearly used a negative tone. And I think some of the sourcing is weak.
The sentence "Coppola was a financial and moral supporter of disgraced film director Victor Salva when Salva was convicted of child sexual abuse and child pornography offences" is only linked to an article that fleetingly mentions Coppola, saying he financed Clownhouse because he liked Salva's amateur films.
The next sentence we see is "Coppola has continued to support Salva financially and professionally throughout the years since." The source just says that Coppola gave Salva $5,000 after he got out of prison, and vouched for him to help him land Jeepers Creepers. So, while sort of true, I think our article is a little vague to make it sound worse than it is.
The third source is an interview with Salva's pedophile victim where he says bad things about Coppola. I think we can agree that, even if the claim is true, it shouldn't be used straight up like it is now. Especially given Coppola denies knowing of any of Salva's crimes during Clownhouse's production (in the second source in this section).
Also, the section titling "controversy" isn't supported, as saying disagreeable things doesn't inherently make a controversy. I would think this probably should not be its own section. Maybe not buried or anything, but regardless of whatever you feel about Coppola thinking Salva should have gotten a second chance in the industry, it clearly is not much of a controversy. Most people don't know or care about it, and it very rarely comes up in reliable sources related to Coppola described as a "controversy".
Anyway, this got long, what do you guys think? -- Quiz shows 02:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
I am concerned by the lack of, and the poor quality of, sources for some statements in this BLP, in particular the statement that "Pannun has claimed responsibility for various terror incidents in India." The discussion on the talk page is here.
In summary, recent articles seem to suggest opposite information regarding this statement, and the one existing source for this paragraph appears to have questionable factual reliability. I am not trying to say whether the information is wrong or right, as frankly I do not know, but words should certainly be chosen carefully to reflect the controversial subject, and maximal sources should be added to back up these statements, to avoid bias and polarization. For the sentence in question, I suggest to minimally add citation needed, though I think it would be better to add the more recent conflicting (and reputable) sources, to show a more neutral point of view. To me, it feels like elements of People accused of crime and Exceptional claims require exceptional sources must apply here, as Pannun has never been convicted of terrorism, and he also claims a governmental conspiracy to silence him.
I am not an avid Wikipedia editor, so I am not able to make the edit myself, and it is totally possible that I have the wrong viewpoint here, but I felt that it would be highly useful for this to receive some broader comments from the experts. :) Thanks to all for their dedication and work on this wonderful platform & resource! Burner2468 ( talk) 15:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Greetings. Apologies if this is not the appropriate place to ask, but I am wanting to know the thoughts of experienced editors about an ongoing dispute, which hasn't been uncivil, about the best way to refer to Laufey in the article. She was born in Iceland to an Icelandic father and a Chinese mother and first established her singing career there but is currently living in the United States. Despite there being no evidence that she has ever lived in China some editors want to describe her as "Chinese-Icelandic" or "Icelandic-Chinese". Based on my reading of WP:ETHNICITY it seems to me that it is best to describe her just by her country of birth which is also where she established her career (she is currently only 23 years of age). Both her nationality and citizenship would appear to be only Icelandic and her ethnic background does not seem to be sufficiently notable to describe her as Chinese-Icelandic or (especially) Icelandic-Chinese. At present the intro describes her as a "singer-songwriter from Icelandic" (claimed by the editor who made it to be an earlier established phrasing but I haven't yet seen any evidence for this claim, the most constant phrasing seems to be "an Icelandic singer-songwriter"). Is this considered an acceptable way to refer to people in terms of their nationality etc? If editors can have a look at the article and editing history and offer any opinions on this matter it would be appreciated. Thanks, Yahboo ( talk) 11:36, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
In the entry for Edwidge Danticat, in the section "Early Life", in the 2nd paragraph, which begins, "While still in Haiti," there is a reference to "the magazine", but I can't see which magazine that means. Maybe I'm missing something. WikiGeorge2020 ( talk) 13:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
An IP editor editing the article recently appears to be either the article subject or acting on their behalf. They are removing templates without discussion and generally editing as though they own the article. I'm up against 3RR, and so I'm seeking review and input from the community. It appears that the article was originally created in 2007 by a SPA with a username the same as that of a co-author of most of the books listed in the article. The article lacks third-party references and appears to be mostly a resume listing of teaching assignments and the article subject's publications. Other eyes on will be appreciated. Geoff | Who, me? 15:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Earlier this week Arvind Limbavali ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was put under page protection after two IP's began removing what they called false information. I rewrote most of the 'Controversy' section to improve the tone and remove NPOV language. A new editor K rakshath ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has begun removing this section again, referring to themselves in the plural and raising concern about this section. They've not responded to any messages on their talk page.
Given that it's a BLP, I'd appreciate some guidance whether their complaint is warranted, or if the section is appropriately sourced and written.
Also pinging @ Annh07 and @ Adakiko.
Celjski Grad ( talk) 16:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion at Talk:Buffy Sainte-Marie#RFC regarding order of presentation in the lead could use some editors more knowledgeable about our BLP policy. Skyerise ( talk) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
This person is non-significant, and does not merit a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.18.127.246 ( talk) 20:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I started a discussion on Jimbo's talk page regarding an issue with unsourced and/or improperly sourced names in the articles of porn performers on various language Wikipedias, Commons, and Wikidata. In the course of that discussion, I got into a dispute with GRuban over whether or not an Instagram account named "elsajeanofficial" would be considered a reliable source for the allegedly real name of porn performer Elsa Jean. Other than that Instagram account, no reliable secondary sources have been offered which connect the two names. I have removed both the name and the birth date from the article for now, since neither was sourced at all. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 05:12, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
I reverted a possible BLP vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Michael_Corcoran_%28musician%29&diff=1190770675&oldid=1190769233 Cwater1 ( talk) 19:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Dear wiki-editors. Doug Weller has suggested to me to post it here.
Peter Toennies has brought to my attention that his English biographical wiki page is in pretty bad shape. It is indeed so (e.g., he is not an American scientist to begin with). Previously, he was trying to maintain the page himself, but he understood from communication with some of the editors/users that a person is not supposed to be creating or editing their page themselves. Therefore he asked for my advice (he is 93 and I'm 45 ;). I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor and don't exactly know what the rules are, so I'm trying to figure it out as I go. My current understanding is that Peter Toennies can legitimately have a bio page per the wiki notability criteria for academics ( /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)). He definitely fulfills the criteria 1,2,3,5,8. Previous edits lacked references, which can be easily provided. I have done so in the tentative edits currently posted in the Talk section of the page. It would be great if you can either unprotect the page for me to bring it to a decent shape or introduce the edits yourself/explain why they are not appropriate. My connection with J. Peter Toennies: I worked in his group in 2001-2005 and he served as the supervisor of my PhD thesis, which I submitted back in 2004. Currently I'm working as a department head at Max-Born-Institute in Berlin and have practically no scientific overlap with Peter anymore. We do communicate occasionally. I appreciate your assistance. With best wishes, Oleg. Kappuzin ( talk) 19:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm looking for some input about a recent dispute on Billy Woods. The article subject is a rapper who is known for concealing his face in public appearances, such as by either covering it or blurring it out in publicity photographs. However, on Commons there exists a photograph of Woods performing onstage. This photo has been repeatedly added to and removed from the article over the past few weeks, eventually leading it to be semi-protected today. The additions and removals have both been performed by multiple parties over time, so I don't see there as being a WP:1AM situation.
The specific input I'm looking for is whether the stable form of the article should include the photo or not. The case for inclusion is a simple one - Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. However, Woods is a BLP, and his likeness is potentially identifying information that he generally strives to keep hidden, which makes the situation a bit more complicated for mepr. Does WP:BLPPRIVACY apply to this situation? How should the article subject's wishes in this respect be weighed against NOTCENSORED?
I've been mulling over this and haven't managed to come to a clear decision on what I feel is the right move, so I wanted to bring it before BLPN to potentially get the topic in front of some eyes that are more experienced in this policy area. The semi-protection means that there's likely no urgent need to do anything, but my hope is to achieve a clearer consensus (in either direction) that we can point to if the dispute picks up again. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 20:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
if the subject or a rep has been editing WPquestion - there haven't been any explicit statements one way or the other, but based on the edit summaries I've seen, my impression is that all the removals have been performed by editors unaffiliated with the subject. ModernDayTrilobite ( talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
"my impression is that all the removals have been performed by editors unaffiliated with the subject"
"Remove picture. Not required. NOTCENSORED doesn't mean we can't show a little respect to BLP subjects. (and, yes, there will still be pictures elsewhere on the internet)"
"I just removed his photograph. The subject prefers not having his picture online. Yes, we are UNCENSORED, but we don't need this picture. It costs us nothing to remove this as a courtesy in the spirit, if not exactly the letter, of WP:BLP. And yes, it will still exist elsewhere online: WP:NOTEVERYOTHERSITE."
I have no comment on whether it should make a difference, but why are editors above just speculating on the reasons?
OkayPlayer says
[59] "woods has kept a low and at times mysterious profile throughout, purposefully blurring his face, shunning a sometimes encroaching spotlight. “In the beginning, it was more me wanting to speak freely without being concerned with what I was saying," woods said. "I enjoy my privacy to a certain extent and just had lots of things I was concerned about impacting real life. It kinda just evolved into its own thing. I’m a very friendly and social person but I don’t like to live super publically.’
"
Brookly Magazine
[60] says "with his face hidden or blurred. Unlike the late MF DOOM, though, the disinclination to be photographed isn’t a part of a character he’s playing (woods raps unmasked in live performances), but is rather an attempt to maintain privacy.
" Note that this is partly an interview.
Bandcamp
[61] says "That elusiveness is a reflection of the person who made them. For one thing, Woods is notoriously private. In press photos, he obscures his face. Even his name, Billy Woods, is an alias.
"
Pitchfork
[62] says "(Privacy is important to woods, which is partly why he always covers or digitally alters his face in music videos and press photos.)
"
I have no idea which of these are RS but I think at least some of them are. Also I guess some might argue that any RS which weren't mentioning it in the context of an interview were just speculating themselves. However I'd suggest that applies to a lot of things.
Actually a common complaint which we nearly always dismiss is that this RS didn't provide evidence or how they came to whatever conclusion, except that by and large when an RS is reporting something in their own voice we assume they've done whatever work is needed that they are confident it is true, that's why they are an RS.
Or to put it a different way, while I guess we can't rule out out being a myth that the media just kept repeating without checking or kayfabe they're participating in, again this is not how we generally treat it when an RS has reported something in their own voice.
To be clear there were some sources I found which mentioned the practice without being clear on the reasons which I didn't include, but none of them seemed to suggest it was only for marketing reasons. Instead they said stuff like Rolling Stone
[63] "Enigmatic to a fault, woods has never publicly released his government name and only agrees to photographs if his face is blurred out. (Incredibly, and despite tours across North America and Europe, audiences have mostly complied.)
".
Or The Guardian
[64] "A recording artist for two decades now, he spent the first half of his maverick career languishing in obscurity (and still obscures his face in photos), but remained true to his voice and built a following that appreciates his kaleidoscopic rhymes and bruising worldview.
"
Nil Einne ( talk) 12:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
It seems like the low-quality photo with his face showing has been restored; should it be reverted? Do we have a general agreement here? JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 ( correct me if I'm wrong) 06:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
I am seeing consensus for removal, so I have removed it (and left an in-article source comment for future reference). Thanks everyone for thoughtful contributions to the discussion. DMacks ( talk) 12:31, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
It should be removed. His whole artistic shtick is not being photographed. And yes, he's notable. Surely there's a royalty-free version with blurring somewhere. He's been around for years. Jondvdsn1 ( talk) 13:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This page sounds and reads very similar to https://thefamilynation.com/mary-berg-husband please review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4B59:34F0:7879:8F92:5D8:89D4 ( talk) 15:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi, in support of the previous correction I enclose a photo of the framed or displayed medals 23 in total. Not sure I worked out how to send photo so please check I did it correct. This has been an uncorrected issue for some time and I will also try and correct IPC site to with a photo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Burton ( talk • contribs)
This [65] has appeared on Pedro Diniz article. I am assuming this kind of thing is removed and scrubbed so as not to be seen in the history? Such a claim would need a source, and a very, very good one. Bretonbanquet ( talk) 12:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Needs eyes. Lots of eyes. Thank you. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 03:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I tagged this article for some additional attention, hoping that people with more knowledge than I might see it or find it from perusing the attached categories, however the article creator insists on edit-warring the tags/categories out which makes it more difficult for this article to get attention from people who might be in a position to fix it.
I did a thorough analysis on the current sourcing at Talk:Rajeev Ranjan Giri#More analysis and determined it is entirely inadequate at this time, and despite searching both in English and Hindi, was unable to find significant coverage of the subject of the article in independent reliable secondary sources. Would someone else mind having a look at this to see if it is fixable. I would rather not send a new user's article to AFD if it can be avoided, but this clearly needs some attention if it is to stay. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:A40C:77E9:C7AF:BFB1 ( talk) 23:39, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Can someone please help change the profile picture? Thanks! See: talk:Zvi Yehuda Kook#Better profile picture 2A01:6500:B107:A784:F968:D28:80:C2E5 ( talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
The section titled "Reception" should be removed. The content is not useful information but controversial political opinion and gossip. The sources cited saying Lex Fridman was born in Tajikstan do not refer to his birth in Tajikstan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonsaiBonzai123 ( talk • contribs) 04:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources", and the sources have already been discussed and agreed reliable on the reliable sources noticeboard: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Business Insider on Lex Fridman. Cheers. Zenomonoz ( talk) 05:30, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
The early life section is given without citation and halfway through changes it's prose style from the Wikipedia bibliography one. No citation given either, seems copy and pasted from someplace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.5.134 ( talk) 00:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I made a trout-slap worthy mistake a while back and wrote that Alexsandr Dyachenko engaged in bad behaviour (not detailing the specific claim due to BLP violations), because an individual with the same name did it. Can we remove a few revisions of the page from visibility (from [67] to [68])? Bremps ... 00:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I get some experienced editors attention on Peter Schiff please. There was a recent court case involving Schiff, Nick McKenzie and McKenzie's employer's which resulted in what WP:RS are calling a settlement. There's a lot of WP:SPA's who take issue with McKenzie's journalism and they've come out to edit biased material into both articles as a consequence of the conclusion of the court case. Nick McKenzie is currently semi-protected, however Peter Schiff isn't and it's not appropriate to call for it at this stage. TarnishedPath talk 00:08, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
I've started an RfC on this subject at Talk:Peter Schiff#RfC: Peter Schiff - Operation Atlantis investigation and subsequent lawsuit against Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 05:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I've started another RfC regarding this subject at Talk:Nick McKenzie#RfC: Lawsuit between Peter Schiff and Australian media. Editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPath talk 01:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This article and its talk page would benefit from additional eyes. 05:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikkimaria ( talk • contribs)
Article contains innacurate and one-sided citation, misrepresentation of source text, and is heavily biased against the author. Source textbook does not call author's a diet a "fad diet" and is not opposed to it but mentions possible outcomes for similar diets clustered in the same table (the only place where name John A. McDougall appears in the entire textbook). Source does not refer to McDougall diet in particular but clustered within a type of diets, some of which are criticized. Referencing done on the article in this form appears malicious and unfair. Choice in wording is also questionable (i.e. "...may lead to a feeling of deprivation.") and amounts to guesswork.
It has been categorized as a low-fat fad diet. The diet rejects all animal products as well as cooking oils, processed food, alcoholic beverages and caffeinated drinks. As with any restrictive high-fiber diet, it may lead to flatulence, possibly poor mineral absorption from excess fiber, and limited food choices that may lead to a feeling of deprivation.[2]
Textbook referenced: 'Byrd-Bredbenner, Carol; Moe, Gaile; Beshgetoor, Donna; Berning, Jacqueline. (2012). Wardlaw's Perspectives in Nutrition, Ninth Edition. McGraw-Hill. pages 338-339. ISBN 978-0-07-352272-2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teleoid ( talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I have blanked several personal attacks on an editor that were against policy. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 05:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I requested help for improving the BLP of Kalki Bhagawan in September 2023 for long standing problems with this BLP [73], [74]. Also sought third opinion but was rejected because more than 3 editors involved.
The serious, long term issues on this page including biased editing opposed specifically to WP:BLPCOI, WP:BLPTALK, WP:NPOVFACT among other violations are detailed here on the article’s talk page, especially serious violations of BLP rules.
In response to initial complaint received support from NatGertler, following which the 'NPOV' and 'unreliable' templates were added to the page.
All editors who have commented, agree regardless of opinion, that there are issues on the page. However, what is disappointing is that there has been no action by editors to improve this article.
I have familiarized myself with WP:BLP rules and now will start removing contentious BLP text from the article and replacing it with balanced content that meets the WP standards for reliable, published sources. I understand BLP rules require consensus on talk page on contentious contents, but allows contentious content to be first removed. I will specify the clear BLP reason for the contention and create a section where the community can comment.
Therefore, I request other editors to not revert any contentious content that I reasonably remove and instead engage on the talk page for discussion first. After the discussion, whatever content is most in accordance with Wikipedia rules - let it prevail.
I look forward to discussions to engage with the Wikipedia community to help fix the long standing issues with this BLP.
Hibiscus192255 ( talk) 12:24, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Neri_Oxman#Plagiarism_controversy, your opinion is welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Because the discussion appears to be spread over multiple sections on the article talk page, I'll just leave this here.
I'd wager based on the media coverage by WP:RS that this is a significant controversy and thus worth a brief mention in the lead, per WP:MOS/LEAD [75]. Accuastions of plagirism also appear in Claudine Gay's lead, despite her being cleared by Harvard. Really, it could be shortened to note that Oxman faced criticism for accepting donations from Jeffrey Epstein, and allegations of plagiarism in her work including lifting paragraphs from Wikipedia. Both are covered in a volume of reliable sources. Zenomonoz ( talk) 20:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Inclusion in the Gay lead was questionable until it affected her career and position. BLPs should not be a showcase for media flashes and allegations. Sections like this about controversies become coatracks for trivia, as is visible in recent edits; now there are multiple paras about responses to responses to the allegations. We can afford to wait for indications of lasting impact. – SJ + 18:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There's a developing news story about this marginally notable former member of a notable rock band. Finding extremely little about him (such sources as there are conflict even on what year he was let go from the band, and a law enforcement agency has mentioned an alias that is the name of a different performer), I first made the article as BLP-compliant as I could, then redirected it to the band. The news story has now progressed: formerly a person of interest in a possible crime, he has now been arrested. The article has been restored and updated, but I still don't find any extended coverage of him. Since the current coverage is related to a crime, I request experienced BLP editors to keep an eye on the article, and also to look at it from the point of view of notability. I don't think it's an AfD candidate, given the recent news stories, but others may disagree on that. Yngvadottir ( talk) 02:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to ask this, but I was wondering if it was okay to leave a footnote at the bottom of his page like I did here [76] as it mentions conflicting sources about his birth year. Many claim 1967. However there's a newspaper from Rome News which was published in 2007 stating that he turned 43 that year. And there's also archived links from the webpage of his old school that have him listed as having graduated in 1982. Which imply a 1964 birth year. I'm asking because I even thought I put in a hidden note saying to read the footnote below before putting down a DOB, editors seem to be ignoring it. From my understanding, references can't just simply be removed or ignored so I put down the references in the footnote next to the birth years that they're claiming. Kcj5062 ( talk) 23:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
Edit The article listed above seems to be from 'Actor has encore, with a message, at Central' from the May 28, 2009 Connecticut Post paper. I can't access it since it's behind a paywall, but maybe a user who has access to the Wiki library can.
Just curious why there is nothing regarding the controversies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.246.216 ( talk) 18:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The decision to reimagine the characters as such was criticised by mainstream and social media sources as being overly politically correctwhen the cited sources don't really seem to support that. Generalrelative ( talk) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion on if something she wrote on Instagram should be mentioned in the article. It's Gaza-war related, your opinion is welcome at Talk:Mika_Tosca#She_no_longer_works_at_SAIC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that I am the one who extended the current conversation. The article does not seem to be headed towards AfD in any speedy fashion, and I don't want to nominate it myself at this time. Therefore: comment from BLPN regulars would be welcome. There is a lot of text in the talk page, so I've tried to summarize the current situation at Talk:Mika Tosca#Arbitrary break, and sources. Russ Woodroofe ( talk) 18:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Pretty blatant vandalism. I attached a screenshot of the vandalism. I can't edit the page because I do not have a Wikipedia account. Can someone remove this vandalism? https://imgur.com/a/OZu5Xmj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:FC80:7640:1B2:C776:4964:A4DA ( talk) 08:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
I am concerned about an edit related to the Israel-Palestine conflict that draws associations with a notable British politician David Lammy, and seems to invite the reader to reach conclusions.
I have placed a section about this on the article talk page, but due to the potential severity of this issue I have bought attention to it here: Talk:Labour Party leadership of Keir Starmer#Large David Lammy image in Gaza-Israel war section due to LFI support.
I do not have 500 edits under the rules for topic edits, so am leaving this to let more experienced editors know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoThisIsPeter ( talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Requesting some other eyes on the Joanne Harris article. Per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:NoorStores, an ex-student of Kate Clanchy is showing an ongoing interest in documenting negative coverage of writers who have criticised Clanchy (eg. Talk:Joanne Harris#Controversies!), misquoting some sources and applying synthesis when combining others. The current version of the article is using a lot of paywalled Times sources that I'm unable to verify. Belbury ( talk) 11:00, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
The content in question was removed as "contentious and possibly libellous material" by Keyserzozie this morning, prior to their comment above. An IP has since posted to the talk page claiming to be Joanne Harris and saying that the cited and paywalled Times source, which NoorStores was possibly drawing from, was partially retracted by the newspaper because of "provable inaccuracies as well as some potentially defamatory allegations".
Since this may be Harris being guided by the Wikipedia interface to follow WP:COISELF best practice (remove the content then post on BLPN), this could use further review. NoorStores' response to the removal of the content was to restore it, so I've removed it again for now. -- Belbury ( talk) 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Article contains unreliable informations concerning his personal life. Special:Diff/1196185696 The sources are two unauthorized biographies of Jagger relying extensively on unverified gossips. The informations are also presented as facts although never confirmed by Jagger himself. Therefore, I believe it should be removed. I'd appreciate another opinion on this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolamelody123456 ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)