This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This is a Canadian MP that has been in the news recently for reasons that are mostly irrelevant to her article as a whole. There has been a lot of activity on her page, including clear sockpuppetry. The edits range from ridiculous fawning over her every breath and deleting any controversies, to edits that are straight up demonization. I am getting tired of trying to keep the balance here. I think this page should be protected. It has been protected in the past after similar activity, which has now resumed. 216.58.117.162 ( talk) 02:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for Comment. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Some eyes would be appreciated over at Chad Wolf, where there is a clear need of consensus and possibly some DS regarding how to describe the lawfulness (or lack thereof) of his appointment. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
In the section "Early Life" occurred this sentence:
1. "Miscegenation with team players" implies that SC was having sex or had had sex with several black team players, and this implies that she was a whore.
2. No evidence is given that GS believed SC was white, that he held racist views against miscegenation, or that he was prejudiced against light-skinned blacks.
3. "Experienced colorism" implies that GS actually did something to SC that she found emotionally painful or professionally hurtful, and that she knew GS did it because he knew that she was a light-skinned black woman. No evidence is given for either implied claim.
4. If GS thought SC was a light-skinned black woman, and because of his prejudice against light-skinned blacks did something to pain her emotionally or hurt her professionally, he cannot have done anything to pain or hurt her because he believed that she had had or was having sex with black men.
5. If GS thought that SC was white, and that she outraged his ideal of racial purity by sleeping with black men, then he cannot have done anything to pain or hurt her because of any prejudice against light-skinned blacks.
6. The sentence contains two contradictory accusations, the unsubstantiated one of colorism, which implies that SC was passing, which of course is not a crime but which implies that GS thought it was a social evil, and the unsubstantiated claim that GS nourished a racist commitment against race-mixing and that he believed SC to be having or to have had sex with several black men, which implies that she was a whore; finally, it contains the unsubstantiated implied claim that GS was guilty of violating SC's constitutional rights.
7. The link to the article containing Sonya Curry's claims is no evidence, since her claims are hearsay evidence of hearsay evidence
I have explained my criticisms more elaborately in the Talk Page section "Problem in the Section 'Early Life,'" and on the strength of my discussion have removed the offending sentence; I submit this report only to alert WP to keep an eye on the section of this article, just in case someone reverses my edit or inserts a revised but still potentially libellous series of statements. Wordwright ( talk) 20:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
My name is Sofía del Prado and I am the subject of Sofía del Prado page. I want information in my personal life changed because it is not correct. I have never spoken out of my sexual orientationl. I had relationships in the past but those do not define me. Therefore I am not bisexual. And I want the relationship mentioned to be erased from that content. I only have my wikepedia page for work and that affects me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiadelprado16 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) https://elcierredigital.com/cultura-y-ocio/2326130/sofia-prado-missuniverso-desmiente-musa-vox.html HERE I ANSWER THAT QUESTION "me han metido dentro de un colectivo sin yo pedirlo. Defiendo la libertad sexual de cada uno, pero todo lo que se forma en torno a eso no me representa. Mantuve una relación con una mujer, pero eso no me define en general." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiadelprado16 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Balloon boy hoax ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Balloon boy hoax article contains information sourced from media articles and blogs that is proven to be incorrect by video evidence linked in the talk page. The page falsely claims that the Heenes engineered a hoax. It is blatant libel. The interrogation of the Heenes (including the illegal interrogations of the children) are captured on video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallax ( talk • contribs) 20:17, November 20, 2020 (UTC) Sinebot missed one Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe that this YouTube video is contains an unedited interview that was shown on CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm8kVXDzTEY
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn, simply claiming "that an article is libel or defamation"
should not be taken as a legal threat. While we don't want anyone making legal threats, we should avoid implying that something constitutes a legal threat simply because of naughty words. Alternative interpretation of the policy would mean that
several user warning templates and a couple of
CSD templates would be non-compliant with
no legal threats policy. An absurd interpretation of the policy could mean that requesting a page making legal threats to be deleted by tagging it with {{
Db-g10}} template would constitute a legal threat.
Politrukki (
talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
User Lexbahn has made substantial unsourced edits to the Mark Donnelly page, and has not edited any other page on Wikipedia. I feel like Lexbahn is probably either Donnelly himself or someone affiliated with him, but I’d appreciate some extra pairs of eyes on this. Sdalmonte ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There have been repeated attempts to add slanderous information to Lodro Rinzler's BLP, relating to an unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct while at Shambala center. The original contributors that added the information noted multiple sources, but they are simply re-shares of the original source; a blog that has since gone out of business earlier this year. If you click on any of the sources it's plain to see that everything refers to the original article.
Additionally the allegation was denied by Rinzler, there was never any evidence presented, he was never found guilty of any misconduct. Yet the information continues to be reposted. There are discussions by other contributors agreeing and confirming that the information should not exist on the page per policy unless more legitimate information was presented. I attempted to remove the content but is immediately being reposted by others, with threats that the removal of the content per BLP guidelines is somehow not allowed. Thus my only recourse is to submit this notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be some type of infobox on Michelle Goldberg that is either libellious, or just totally unrelated to the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.116.226 ( talk) 06:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Vladimir Leposavić ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) False information relying on unreliable source "Pobjeda" contained in "political career". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin002 ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
the oldest Montenegrin newspaper still in circulation, as unreliable. - Ryk72 talk 00:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Palmer Report ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor have added this to Palmer Report, citing Bill Palmer's blog posts (emphasis added):
References
Is this acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF? Politrukki ( talk) 12:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don't care about the credibility of the record", according to The Atlantic, and the material is improper synthesis of two sources. Politrukki ( talk) 12:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
which has since been backed up by other sourcesbit is WP:SYNTH. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"has built a following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump going to prison", but that is due to recent edit-warring. The status quo version is one of these:
The site has been criticized for building a large following based on "wildly speculative theories about Donald Trump."[5]
The site has been criticized for building a large following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump.[6]
"speculative theories about Donald Trump"The source you cited is already covered quite extensively in the article, in "Criticism" section. Now I have to ask, does the source you cited support the new content
"since at least August 2018"? Politrukki ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask for an additional pair of eyes on this? Eduardo Yanga is not even remotely a public figure WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. He's mentioned briefly in the article as the husband of the article's subject. He committed a driving offence which led to his license being suspended for 20 months, which I can only find mentioned in one online article, so hardly a significant event. Within the article itself, it's coatracking and hardly significant to understanding the subject of the article. Valenciano ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
James Mwangi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could I get some opinions on the content in the James Mwangi#Controversy section, please? An IP editor left a message on my talk page earlier today:
Hi, whats your opinion on the edits of this based on the sources. They have been tagged as possible BLP sources. For this another user who is inherently promoting the page has reverted the edits. The edits are about sexual assault allegations about James Mwangi. I feel the reversal is subjective as the articles are inherently notable based on the specifics of the allegations and verifiability. James mwangi is a public figure whose personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest . Esther Passaris gave actual interviews to these sites (Nairobi news of nation.africa and Tuko News), there are actual court records about these allegations. These are actual allegations that can be cleaned up but not removed. Esther Passaris spoke directly to Nairobi News and Tuko News, as per the article. Business today reported as per court records. All which can prove mwangi's conduct on these allegations to meet inline citations. What is your opinion on this?
---- 197.237.79.204 ( talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why they picked me to ask, since I don't believe I've edited the page. I also don't have any familiarity whatsoever with Kenyan sources, which makes it a bit more difficult to evaluate the reliability. To me the section seems a bit questionable—focusing somewhat heavily on alleged actions of a totally different BLP, as well as on allegations that have not been proven in court. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have time to continue with this discussion, so I'll leave it to others for the time being. I just leave off by trying to explain, but first a question. Why is this so important to you? Do you have a personal stake in this? If so, you should read WP:Conflict of interest.
Personally, I've never heard of this guy until it was brought to this board. I did read the sources, each and every one. I've been participating at this board for a long time, and reviewing sources is what we all do here. It's really easy to tell what kind of source you're dealing with in very short order. A good source will stand out. Blogs and other sources that anybody can make are not reliable. Every news outlet has opinion/editorial columns, but those aren't reliable columns --even if the actual new articles they publish are. A real news article will give opinions of experts or other such people whose opinions really matter, and they will not only attribute those opinions to the expert, but will go out of their way to find opposing opinions and give those fair coverage too. In a really good news article you can't tell what the author's opinion is because they never let it show. It makes no difference what some writer or editor thinks. Those op/ed columns are just special-interest pieces, to fill space.
Now, besides the lack of good sourcing, there are several other problems I have seen. Some of these sources, such as the op/ed columns, say the opposite of what was written in our article. Those sources said that they believed he was innocent, and everyone who knows the subject says the allegations are crazy, and they think this woman is just greedy and trying to blackmail him. We can't just WP:Cherrypick the info we like and ignore the rest. We have to give a summary of the source as a whole. (That is, if those were good sources, but they weren't, so that's really moot in this case.) Then two of the other sources were about lawsuits against the bank, and never mention the subject. Just because he works for the bank doesn't mean he's a plaintiff in every lawsuit they get into, and we can't use that source to try to make such a connection when the source itself makes no such connection. See WP:Synthesis. That's just scratching the surface.
Now for some event to be exempt from BLPCRIME, it has to be very widely covered in reliable sources. We don't count non-reliable sources like blogs. There can't be just one or two sources reporting on it, but it needs to be widely reported as such that there's no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Lastly, and most importantly, you all have to stop calling this an "assault". That word has a very specific meaning, implying it was done with violence, and none --not one-- of the sources describes an assault nor do they even call it that (and wisely so). At best, this allegation falls under harassment, but to use the word "assault" is downright false , and that is a violation of BLP that I can't just stand by and watch. And BLP applies to talk pages too. Zaereth ( talk) 02:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There is constant arguing over Agnew's birthday. (Here's the article history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Chlo%C3%AB_Agnew) User:Laterthanyouthink is trying to say there's no reliable source over her birthday when we've put two separate sources
Last I checked, Twitter can be used as a reliable source if it's minimally used and not used in either of these ways: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I don't think a tweet stating her birthday is "self-serving" despite what Laterthanyouthibk says. Here's the link https://mobile.twitter.com/ChloeAgnew/status/476201102908481538
And I mentioned above, I put a separate article that states the year of her birth: https://www.rsvplive.ie/news/celebs/chloe-agnew-twink-husband-david-12943255 (If you read the bottom of the article, it says "Twink married oboist David in 1983 and had two children, Chloe, born in 1989, and Naomi in 1993.')
And Later accused me of trying to own the article, when he's the one not listening.
Can you help me sort this out, I'm tired of fighting. Kay girl 97 ( talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Aleksandr Dugin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The article is packed with editorialization in place of information
1. The use of serial killer in lead seems contentious on the talk page. 2. I don't know know how much personal information is appropriate, but listing his DOB and other personal details seems excessive. 3. Referenced news articles appear largely sensationalist/speculative, and neutrality might be an issue. I haven't read the whole article, but I'm concerned it might be a target of activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythagimedes ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
One editor has inserted a great deal of non- WP:RSs and WP:OR into Abigail Shrier. Here: [10] the editor has inserted self-published sources, or sources that don't directly mention Shrier or her book, which makes it WP:OR. Similar matter with this edit: [11]. The lead sentence is also non-reliably sourced. The editor has been warned of their conduct: [12], but continues to edit war and insert poorly sourced claims into a BLP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 04:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a reason for this man to have a Wikipedia article. According to the article he’s only “famous” for getting into college at a young age. In the talk page someone writes “March is a math wizard, a miracle of nature and a savant. I created this article to make him an icon of others who cannot afford to study in prestigious schools.” This doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for the page to exist. He does not have any influential articles or books, or even a job as a professor.
/info/en/?search=March_Boedihardjo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:4181:590:1f2:276d:2ae:850e ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
hi, Flagging that contentious and irrelevant material has been added to the page, Peter Tufano, a biography of a living person. Nasilemak1973 ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Peggy Gou ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Several controversial statements sourced directly and only from Daniel Wang's recent Facebook posts are being presented as facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.207.9 ( talk) 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is tagged as having a controversies section which may be compromising its NPOV. The most blatant case here is an alleged story from September 2001 which is cited to a dead link from 2010. This story is denied by the subject https://metro.co.uk/2010/09/13/kay-burley-i-was-surprised-to-see-peter-andre-cry-510520/ and https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/if-i-didnt-have-skin-rhino-i-might-be-offended-why-kay-burley-wont-let-trolls-bring-her-down/ . There are some mentions of this story from December 2001 in lists of quotations from the year, but I am yet to find one from the actual event.
I removed this material and was reverted immediately without an edit summary by a recent changes moderator, who I myself have reverted once. I have no intention of further reverts or 3RR. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Dana_Fischer Dana Fischer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person is 10 years old and not a celebrity. Too much private information about the child. Might be a COPPA violation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2801:d035:4cc2:5de5:352e:2f40 ( talk) 21:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Anindian2020 has been edit warring to retain adding contentious material in the Akbaruddin Owaisi BLP. [14] [15]
The claim they are adding is "anti-hindu and anti-national speeches" sourced at first to a YouTube video that does not pass WP:RSBLP ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-5DJivuAU ) then to an article in India Today that does not support the claim ( https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/akbaruddin-owaisi-hate-speech-aimim-bjp-cpi-1573946-2019-07-26 )
It appears that Akbaruddin Owaisi has made multiple speeches that are controversial, and that others have accused him of being ant-hindu, but per WP:BLP such claims must be attributed, not stated as if they were established facts in Wikipedia's voice. I see several problem statements in the article that have this problem. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(The following was moved here from my talk page. [16] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
Multiple accounts continuously try to remove a well-sourced section on sexual misconduct allegations. The section been undone twice by User:Gamal Elsherbini. These are the account's only two edits. At http://faculty-alsayyad.ced.berkeley.edu/portfolio/xxa-partners.html, there is a Gamal Elsherbini listed as one of AlSayyad's frequent partners and collaborators. Furthermore, nearly the entire article was written by User:Pejiedita, which has also recently removed the section. Looking at all Pejiedita's contributions, it's clear that this account belongs to either AlSayyad or someone close to him. There's also an account, User:Madan Mehta, which has made only one edit—the most recent deletion of the sexual misconduct section. Essentially it's turning into an edit war to retain the section. Gbrkk ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
A section named "Sexual misconduct charges" was repeatedly added to the article. Any attempt to
A) remove it, B) change the section title so that it does not contain the word "sexual", C) add sentences or references that present other views, D) reveal the name of the person who is behind the sexual harassment claim,
results in reversal of changes. It is not known whether AlSayyad did something inappropriate until facts are discovered. The pending court hearing might clarify things. Meanwhile media and Wikipedia are used to associate Alsayyad's name with the words "sexual harassment". People who know AlSayyad for many years can vouch that he is not that kind of person. But the student insists that he harassed her sexually. This is clearly a controversy and it would be fair to depict it as that. Is it possible to lock the article and prevent edits to show only one side of the controversy?
Thank you!
Pejiedita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pejiedita ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors are invited to this discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death of Justin Berry / User:JustinBerry and to review the article Justin Berry for BLP compliance particularly in relation to their death. Note that to avoid splitting the discussion, please either comment at RSN or Talk:Justin Berry, not here. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone with rights to remove other people's edits keeps changing this biography to remove references to Hunter Biden have been appointed to the Burisma Board of Directors when his father was Vice President of the USA, and it was only after Hunter joined Burisma that Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid funds from Ukraine unless Ukraine fired Shokin who was then investigating corruption at Burisma. It is impossible to understand Shokin's firing without this factual context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEOLES ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Joe Alwyn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page is subject to unsourced content being added at a rapid pace. To clarify: he is Taylor Swift's boyfriend, and he wrote five songs off of her last two albums, Folklore and Evermore. Since this was revealed, everyone thinks it’s ok to add “songwriter” to his professions, when it’s an unsourced claim. Also - even if they did source it, it’s still not a notable profession. It’s very tiring to revert everything.
The page is already under pending changes protection, so I don’t know what a next step could be. Nevertheless, this page is being disrupted. D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 04:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Media are reporting on an investigation by Axios, which claim a past link or suspected affairs between an possible Chinese spy, congressman Eric Swalwell and several mayors. In Wikipedia, there is now a paraphrasing of the the original article, that is only a few days old. Essentially, most of the information about Christine Fang is based on one Axios report [20] and circumstantial evidence. Fang was followed for potentially being a spy. The only facts were her interest in powerful men and politics. She may have had her own reasons for being involved, as there's no evidence of being directed by the Chinese government, and her attending San Francisco consulate functions were not secret. She was an international student, but her visa wasn't cancelled. There's not even an exit interview. Essentially she was monitored but no case was assembled against her. The only action taken was that Swalwell was advised to cut ties with her. It's possible these scandalous accusations are true, it's more likely she was just an ambitious young woman, trying to make a name for herself. We don't know her real story biographically and the matter will be tied up in salacious partisan politics.
The Wikipedia article has many sources, but as per WP:RESEARCH they are "multiple works that derive from a single source.". WP:RS says "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source" and WP:RECENT says "editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information". Referenced articles in the SF Chronicle, The Hindustan Times, Cleveland's City Beat, Politico, Fox, CNN and most of the others, specifically say they are basing their information only the Axios report, and each use the term suspected, alleged or reported. Of course, the political reaction around Swalwell will have multiple-sources, but that is irrelevant to the lack of factual and neutral biographical information about Fang. There's no real name, no birthday, no birthplace. Her situation since leaving the US is unknown. I would understand the most relevant policy here is WP:SUSPECT, in that the articles allege a crime, but there's no direct evidence or propositional case about it. Fang would not belong in the List of Chinese spy cases in the United States, none of whom have a biographical article. For the record, I have no link to anyone or any side. Travelmite ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
I stupidly included a self-published source in this article. It was a blog by a Cambridge prof, critiquing a controversial paper. In a blog a few days later, the prof revised his criticism (still quite negative about the paper). A Ted Hill SPA added a positive fact from this new blog. I, after reading WP:BLPSPS, deleted both. Got reverted by same SPA.
Received angry e-mail from Ted Hill, addressed to my supervisor, and wish to disengage. Can any experienced editor here make sure it complies with WP:BLP? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
generally unreliable for facts. Being
primarily a publication of opinion, it can be used to source attributed opinions if there is a due weight case for including them. I doubt one opinion column (in Standpoint) pointing to another (in Quillette) really substantiates such a case. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The IP 108.56.255.219 is repeatedly adding original research at Kristin Kreuk's page regarding a boyfriend. They have received repeated warnings over the months. I outlined the issues with the sources being used on the talk page and due to their persistent disruptive editing the page was protected, however now the protection has been removed they have resumed adding the content. I first left a comment at the talk page about this content two and a half years ago as this has been persistently added by various different users and IP addresses (some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). This particular IP first added this content back in December last year and these are the only edits they make. Can this user be blocked from editing? Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 01:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Since I created this section, the IP has again reincluded it and is clearly intent on insisting that the edit does not violate WP:NOR when it clearly does. They have been warned about it multiple times by multiple different users. Can they not be blocked? WP:BLOCKP. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 02:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: The IP has since been blocked from editing Kristin Kreuk's article for one year. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly adding unsourced information concerning
Jesy Nelson and
Little Mix, both BLPs, to the articles listed above. I have made a section at this noticeboard since the guidelines at
WP:BLP state Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page [,avoiding]
No original research (NOR)
. They are an IP user, so I think a temporary semi protection to both of those pages should solve problems.
D🐶ggy54321 (
let's chat!) 01:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This article states that Van Dissel “supports deliberately infecting a significant percentage of the Dutch population to induce herd immunity,[6] despite SARS-CoV-2 antibodies only lasting a few months (thus resulting in possibility of a reinfection)”. This is a misleading representation of Van Dissel's position.
Firstly, “deliberately infecting” sounds as if Van Dissel has advocated deliberately exposing individuals to the virus, which is certainly not the case.
In the very early stages of the pandemic in March, Van Dissel advocated allowing the virus to spread to people who would not be seriously affected in order to build up herd immunity (not “deliberately infecting”), ( https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2327338-50-tot-60-procent-nederlanders-moet-corona-krijgen-voor-groepsimmuniteit.html). However, he immediately clarified this position and said that herd immunity was not the government’s primary aim. ( https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/groepsimmuniteit-het-kabinet-wil-vooral-tijd-kopen~b26a978f/; https://www.nu.nl/coronavirus/6038428/rivm-baas-groepsimmuniteit-is-geen-doel-op-zich.html)
On 26 November 2020 Van Dissel said the idea of allowing the virus to spread among people who would not be seriously affected, as he expressed in March, had not been a real option. https://twitter.com/Nieuwsuur/status/1332068842131124226
Secondly, the sentence “despite SARS-CoV-2 antibodies only lasting a few months (thus resulting in possibility of a reinfection)” is tendentiously worded in the context and needs fact checking and updating.
Thirdly, the statement that Van Dissel “gained notoriety” as chairman of the Outbreak Management Team is tendentious. Note that this only appears on the English page and doesn’t reflect the entry on the Dutch page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micblass ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I AMM DR DAVID JUBB. REMOVE THIS CONTENT AT ONCE PLEASE. THIS IS NOT ACCURATE. I WILL UPLOAD MY OWN BIOGRAPHY. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ECLIPSENOWJUBB (
talk •
contribs) 08:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Jubb&action=edit§ion=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro
I AM AN INDEPENDANT JOUNALIST AND I WORK WITH THE jubbdavid and he is not happy with the content that is written about him. He is a forensic expert and is requesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0jcquanta0 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there are things that I need to know about editing that I must know about that Wikipedia administrators could tell me. Please message me here and I will let you know what they are. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Meredith Perry Defamatory and libelous information about Meredith Perry that is unsourced or poorly sourced is being repeatedly inserted to this page to defame her and spread misinformation.
Link to diff
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portcanny ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Idriss Aberkane The last line in the article mentions an article by Le Monde who has since been taken down because of "many alerts mentionning errors", as is (rightfully) said in the french version of the same article. I believe this is directly clashing with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Related links (first two taken from the french wikipedia's References section) : menace-theoriste.fr This link is down Libération — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:44F:E7E0:5C39:374:DB62:4A8F ( talk) 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Several users have attempted to add potentially libelous claims about the AI professor Pedro Domingos to his Wikipedia page. Most of this relates to a recent Twitter spat and is poorly sourced (no secondary sources) and not written in a neutral tone. For example, he is said to be described by defamatory epithets (too strong for a BLP) by "many in the AI community", but the source relies on two tweets only. Concerns regarding potential BLP violations are repeatedly ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir-lay ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Afterward, some false information in a non-notable paragraph claiming that "articles of impeachment were officially issued" was merged into this article, replacing a prior sub-section, and those 3 stand-alone articles.
The same user created all 3, and an off-site "IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION AGAINST OHIO GOVERNOR MIKE DEWINE {UNOFFICIAL WIKI}". URL: https://dewineimpeachmentwiki.weebly.com/.
This has already been the topic of 6 prior sections of the Talk:Mike DeWine to-date. Yet it persists.
In this case, merely filing something doesn't make it "officially issued". It was just a press release. No hearings. Everybody else in the legislature (and the world) condemned it. It stands out as inflammatory grandstanding.
What is our current process for formally removing non-notable nonsense and prohibiting its reinsertion, that isn't an article or a category or a rename or a template XfD? Is this it?
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 03:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Recommend an RFC on this topic, for both the DeWine & Whitmer and other bio articles, as this will pop up again & again. The big question - "Do impeachment resolutions merit their own article or do they need mentioning in a bio article?" Something like that. GoodDay ( talk) 13:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Eyes needed on this thread regarding the edit linked therein. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
An RfC has been started, Talk:Hunter_Biden#RfC_-_Mention_the_child_support_suit. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A user is continuously adding "convicted sex offender" to the first sentence of Goran Jevtić (actor)'s page, despite being reverted by a few different editors.
This is a contentious label and rarely applied to the introductory lead sentence, such as in extreme cases like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. But in this instance, it's not what he's known for and there's no consensus for adding that to the first sentence. His conviction (for "illegal sexual acts") is already covered in the lead and body.
For more context and detailed overview, see the report at ANI. -- 2605:8D80:6C1:1551:A9E2:4B05:6317:4CA0 ( talk) 21:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump's pick to replace Barr -- some IPs are POV-pushing, so more eyes could help. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was previously deleted in a November AfD, but has recently been recreated by Jeromi Mikhael, essentially the same as the article before the AfD. There has been more coverage since the AfD, and the deletion case is now borderline. There are various BLP related issues in the article, including the claim that their real first name is "Clay" and their Date of Birth are without adequate sourcing. The article has high levels of IP user activity, and it would be good if other users can take a look. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm flagging issues related to how Dianne Feinstein's article covers issues related to her mental health (e.g. a mental decline). The issue has been covered in reliable sources but raises BLP issues. [26] [27] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
We better get this right in how we handle it, for all bios of living people. With 78-year old Biden, coming in as US President next month? there's a good chance 'mental health' will resurface as a topic. GoodDay ( talk) 05:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
there shall be no paragraph regarding the mental health of Donald Trump" is in my opinion overly broad, because it has the effect of excluding any mention of the public conversation about Trump's mental health, when the focus of the RfC was actually about whether to include information about his mental health. I would understand if the RfC were to exclude text such as, "According to psychologist Dr. Bandy Lee, 'Trump's mental illness is a growing danger'", [29] but I disagree that it would be appropriate to exclude text stating that Trump called himself a "very stable genius" in response to concerns about his mental fitness, [30] or text stating that according to Psychiatric News, "columnists and op-ed writers decided en masse to diagnose [then candidate Donald Trump] with mental illness." [1] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 05:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
References
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative. Einsof ( talk) 16:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The recent and ongoing issue with respect to Sen. Feinstein relates to the performance of her duties. These can be discussed as appropriate without tagging a diagnosis or psycho-babble terminology. The issue was raised in the 2020 campaign with respect to Joe Biden as part of a narrative to discredit him and promote the now-deprecated narratives of Tara Reade, an accuser. The Trump-labeling was just about unanimously rejected because it would have added nothing but confusion and controversy to an article that seeks to describe, not evaluate the man. The fact is that, even if a public figure is medically diagnosed, as Reagan eventually was, it adds quite little to the narrative of his words and deeds. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Dispute over unverified information, original research, and cherry-picking sources in an attempt to support that original research.
She received mostly favorable reviews. [1] For example, Courtney Howard, in Variety, commented: "She ropes us into the mystery of her character reveal with heaping amounts of magnetism and grounded authenticity. It’s no surprise that the music-driven scenes really showcase her power". [2] [3]
References
She received mostly favorable reviews
is not verified, and original research.
I realize that there's no easy way to pick and choose what reviews to mention. I hope we agree that they should be about her performance, published by a highly prominent reviewer. Having just one review quoted, a positive one, seems to support the unverified information. Bundling references to positive reviews and tacking on a reference to a negative review is not proper POV. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
She received many favorable reviews during it's premiere.[35]. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The consensus on VanderWaal's Talk page addresses this issue, and it does not merit a rehashing on this board. Somambulant1 ( talk) 00:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hipal, your endless forum-shopping and inability to read English is tiresome. There is no WP:V or WP:OR issue here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I am a fan of Lola Astanova and periodically I add information to her page with references to open media sources. Over the past several months, several people constantly make arbitrary changes to my additions and never providing any reasoning or references for changes.
1. The constantly change the year of birth from 1985 (as I reference in a Haute Living magazine article) to 1982.
2. They constantly change the country of birth from USSR or Soviet Union to Uzbek SSR, which was NOT a country, but rather a region of the USSR where Ms. Astanova was born. It is inaccurate to call it "Uzbek SSR" by any measure.
3. They removed information regarding Ms. Astanova's duet of Hauser of the 2cellos, regarding her film project with Andrea Bocelli and David Foster, regarding her electronic music release by Sony Music earlier this year. All that information was referenced by public sources and is easily verifiable through iTunes, YouTube and other platforms where those projects are available. Removal of that information with for no reason and with no explanation appears malicious. The people doing it appear to have an agenda and they are not sticking to just listing the facts with public source references. I am asking to please look into these changes and help protect the page's accuracy and integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPS1965 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone help me out with an annoying edit war at Antony Blinken (and also virtually every other page that Jacksonshatek has contributed to lately? They are insisting that infoboxes should not indicate these people's presumptive positions in the Biden administration. I don't know whether infoboxes for incoming government personnel should or shouldn't include their presumptive titles, but the amount of constant back-and-forth on this is getting a little ridiculous. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Forgive the ping, but I've noticed that
Tartan357 has identified at least one bit of consensus that might help here. They've been pointing out on a number of these pages that
Template:Infobox officeholder/doc notes: The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place.
I don't know if this represents a longstanding consensus or just one template-doc-writer's view, but it's something. It also doesn't settle the general question of how people should be referred to outside the infobox. [Such-and-such]–designate seems a popular choice, but that seems at least OR-adjacent to me since I don't recall any sources referring to anyone as [Secretary of X]-designate. It's OK as a compromise position, I guess.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Biden has announced that Blinken et al will be his nominees. This is not the speculation of a few Wikipedia editors. It is also not our responsibility if
a lot of people will only look at the infobox and take it as the here and now, unless we say that Blinken has assumed office as Secretary of State.
the presumptive nomineeuntil January 21;
the nomineeafter January 21 (or whenever the nomination occurs); and, of course,
the, e.g.,
Secretary of Stateonce they're confirmed. But this seems overly pedantic and difficult to police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AleatoryPonderings ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
nominee, without qualification, seems fine to me. As GoodDay notes below, we should do this consistently everywhere. I guess I !vote for
nomineein all cases. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
presumptive nominee, with
nominee(unqualified) as second choice. Would give us a uniform rule to apply in these scenarios without having to parse individual RS once a nomination has been made to see if they say "nominee" without qualification or with some qualification. If this is adopted, we should say "presumptive nominee" or "nominee" (as the case may be) absolutely everywhere in the article—there should be no inconsistency between infobox and body. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 23:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I still think, for the infobox, we should wait until he actually gets the job. The problem I see with "presumptive nominee" is that, while we all know what that means (because we're talking about it), the average reader is going to look at that and say, "WTF?". It's like calling someone "a little bit pregnant". You either are or you aren't. The infobox should list the person's current profession, period. I don't see any good reason why we should rush it. It's already in the article for those who want to know more, but the infobox is just a list of basic attributes. Zaereth ( talk) 23:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place(emphasis in text). We are not mentioning the date here, and my reading of WP:CRYSTAL is that the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sdrqaz ( talk) 02:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you both want the articles protected or editors blocked?, I have no idea what you're even trying to say. KidAd talk 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I speak on the legal and professional behalf of Quinton Flynn and his affiliates. I am requesting the removal of edit history concerning the removal of a libelous claim sourced by a gossip magazine. We are ensuring the complete removal of content online concerning defamatory and libelous claims made regarding Quinton Flynn, a public figure.
I would like more information on how we can prevent these libelous claims from the online gossip magazine and appearing on Flynn's Wikipedia entry again. I'd also like to know if we can request a lock on any editing to his profile for a period of time. Locking the article from editing will be a massive help in combatting the claims, and ensuring that his Wikipedia article is a source of accurate information, cited with legitimate sources.
Thanks for your help, I look forward to speaking with someone soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Quinton_Flynn&diff=prev&oldid=995313727 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:7D0:54E0:3182:F782:6BB8:1AF6 ( talk) 11:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The page is filled with libelous content. While some portion of the controversy section on the page is relevant, most of it is disgruntled rant and does not comply with WP:BLP. A neutral editor will be best suited to clean up the page. Aayan.v ( talk) 15:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
At a glance, the article seems too much an attack page. Careful review of the references would be a good start. Any that fail BLP requirements should be removed. Any unreferenced content should be removed. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I found this citation-less and source-less bio. Seems rather non-notable. Are there any concerns I should know about before nominating for deletion? Spongecob Flairpants ( talk) 09:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
There have been repeated additions of Mika Tosca's past name, contrary to MOS:DEADNAME. I will try to address the issue on the article's Talk page, but would appreciate some assistance. Thank you. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This individual does not seem to be notable. Am I wrong? I wanted some feedback before I started a deletion proposal. Spongecob Flairpants ( talk) 05:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
this piece on Aseem Malhotra is shocking! He is a highly respected cardiologist awarded a fellowship to the Royal College of Physicians for his work and contribution to medicine Dec 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.159.232 ( talk) 00:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
This is a Canadian MP that has been in the news recently for reasons that are mostly irrelevant to her article as a whole. There has been a lot of activity on her page, including clear sockpuppetry. The edits range from ridiculous fawning over her every breath and deleting any controversies, to edits that are straight up demonization. I am getting tired of trying to keep the balance here. I think this page should be protected. It has been protected in the past after similar activity, which has now resumed. 216.58.117.162 ( talk) 02:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images#Request for Comment. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
MOS:DEADNAME has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 10:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Some eyes would be appreciated over at Chad Wolf, where there is a clear need of consensus and possibly some DS regarding how to describe the lawfulness (or lack thereof) of his appointment. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
In the section "Early Life" occurred this sentence:
1. "Miscegenation with team players" implies that SC was having sex or had had sex with several black team players, and this implies that she was a whore.
2. No evidence is given that GS believed SC was white, that he held racist views against miscegenation, or that he was prejudiced against light-skinned blacks.
3. "Experienced colorism" implies that GS actually did something to SC that she found emotionally painful or professionally hurtful, and that she knew GS did it because he knew that she was a light-skinned black woman. No evidence is given for either implied claim.
4. If GS thought SC was a light-skinned black woman, and because of his prejudice against light-skinned blacks did something to pain her emotionally or hurt her professionally, he cannot have done anything to pain or hurt her because he believed that she had had or was having sex with black men.
5. If GS thought that SC was white, and that she outraged his ideal of racial purity by sleeping with black men, then he cannot have done anything to pain or hurt her because of any prejudice against light-skinned blacks.
6. The sentence contains two contradictory accusations, the unsubstantiated one of colorism, which implies that SC was passing, which of course is not a crime but which implies that GS thought it was a social evil, and the unsubstantiated claim that GS nourished a racist commitment against race-mixing and that he believed SC to be having or to have had sex with several black men, which implies that she was a whore; finally, it contains the unsubstantiated implied claim that GS was guilty of violating SC's constitutional rights.
7. The link to the article containing Sonya Curry's claims is no evidence, since her claims are hearsay evidence of hearsay evidence
I have explained my criticisms more elaborately in the Talk Page section "Problem in the Section 'Early Life,'" and on the strength of my discussion have removed the offending sentence; I submit this report only to alert WP to keep an eye on the section of this article, just in case someone reverses my edit or inserts a revised but still potentially libellous series of statements. Wordwright ( talk) 20:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
My name is Sofía del Prado and I am the subject of Sofía del Prado page. I want information in my personal life changed because it is not correct. I have never spoken out of my sexual orientationl. I had relationships in the past but those do not define me. Therefore I am not bisexual. And I want the relationship mentioned to be erased from that content. I only have my wikepedia page for work and that affects me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiadelprado16 ( talk • contribs) 18:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC) https://elcierredigital.com/cultura-y-ocio/2326130/sofia-prado-missuniverso-desmiente-musa-vox.html HERE I ANSWER THAT QUESTION "me han metido dentro de un colectivo sin yo pedirlo. Defiendo la libertad sexual de cada uno, pero todo lo que se forma en torno a eso no me representa. Mantuve una relación con una mujer, pero eso no me define en general." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofiadelprado16 ( talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Balloon boy hoax ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Balloon boy hoax article contains information sourced from media articles and blogs that is proven to be incorrect by video evidence linked in the talk page. The page falsely claims that the Heenes engineered a hoax. It is blatant libel. The interrogation of the Heenes (including the illegal interrogations of the children) are captured on video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Axgyj7g5XZY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kallax ( talk • contribs) 20:17, November 20, 2020 (UTC) Sinebot missed one Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
I believe that this YouTube video is contains an unedited interview that was shown on CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm8kVXDzTEY
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn, simply claiming "that an article is libel or defamation"
should not be taken as a legal threat. While we don't want anyone making legal threats, we should avoid implying that something constitutes a legal threat simply because of naughty words. Alternative interpretation of the policy would mean that
several user warning templates and a couple of
CSD templates would be non-compliant with
no legal threats policy. An absurd interpretation of the policy could mean that requesting a page making legal threats to be deleted by tagging it with {{
Db-g10}} template would constitute a legal threat.
Politrukki (
talk) 14:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
User Lexbahn has made substantial unsourced edits to the Mark Donnelly page, and has not edited any other page on Wikipedia. I feel like Lexbahn is probably either Donnelly himself or someone affiliated with him, but I’d appreciate some extra pairs of eyes on this. Sdalmonte ( talk) 23:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There have been repeated attempts to add slanderous information to Lodro Rinzler's BLP, relating to an unsubstantiated claim of sexual misconduct while at Shambala center. The original contributors that added the information noted multiple sources, but they are simply re-shares of the original source; a blog that has since gone out of business earlier this year. If you click on any of the sources it's plain to see that everything refers to the original article.
Additionally the allegation was denied by Rinzler, there was never any evidence presented, he was never found guilty of any misconduct. Yet the information continues to be reposted. There are discussions by other contributors agreeing and confirming that the information should not exist on the page per policy unless more legitimate information was presented. I attempted to remove the content but is immediately being reposted by others, with threats that the removal of the content per BLP guidelines is somehow not allowed. Thus my only recourse is to submit this notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbonaccors ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
There seems to be some type of infobox on Michelle Goldberg that is either libellious, or just totally unrelated to the rest of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.155.116.226 ( talk) 06:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Vladimir Leposavić ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) False information relying on unreliable source "Pobjeda" contained in "political career". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin002 ( talk • contribs) 13:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
the oldest Montenegrin newspaper still in circulation, as unreliable. - Ryk72 talk 00:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Palmer Report ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An editor have added this to Palmer Report, citing Bill Palmer's blog posts (emphasis added):
References
Is this acceptable per WP:ABOUTSELF? Politrukki ( talk) 12:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"the publication of record for anti-Trump conspiracy nuts who don't care about the credibility of the record", according to The Atlantic, and the material is improper synthesis of two sources. Politrukki ( talk) 12:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
which has since been backed up by other sourcesbit is WP:SYNTH. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
"has built a following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump going to prison", but that is due to recent edit-warring. The status quo version is one of these:
The site has been criticized for building a large following based on "wildly speculative theories about Donald Trump."[5]
The site has been criticized for building a large following based on speculative theories about Donald Trump.[6]
"speculative theories about Donald Trump"The source you cited is already covered quite extensively in the article, in "Criticism" section. Now I have to ask, does the source you cited support the new content
"since at least August 2018"? Politrukki ( talk) 15:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Can I ask for an additional pair of eyes on this? Eduardo Yanga is not even remotely a public figure WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. He's mentioned briefly in the article as the husband of the article's subject. He committed a driving offence which led to his license being suspended for 20 months, which I can only find mentioned in one online article, so hardly a significant event. Within the article itself, it's coatracking and hardly significant to understanding the subject of the article. Valenciano ( talk) 19:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
James Mwangi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Could I get some opinions on the content in the James Mwangi#Controversy section, please? An IP editor left a message on my talk page earlier today:
Hi, whats your opinion on the edits of this based on the sources. They have been tagged as possible BLP sources. For this another user who is inherently promoting the page has reverted the edits. The edits are about sexual assault allegations about James Mwangi. I feel the reversal is subjective as the articles are inherently notable based on the specifics of the allegations and verifiability. James mwangi is a public figure whose personal conduct in the public domain is of public interest . Esther Passaris gave actual interviews to these sites (Nairobi news of nation.africa and Tuko News), there are actual court records about these allegations. These are actual allegations that can be cleaned up but not removed. Esther Passaris spoke directly to Nairobi News and Tuko News, as per the article. Business today reported as per court records. All which can prove mwangi's conduct on these allegations to meet inline citations. What is your opinion on this?
---- 197.237.79.204 ( talk) 05:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure why they picked me to ask, since I don't believe I've edited the page. I also don't have any familiarity whatsoever with Kenyan sources, which makes it a bit more difficult to evaluate the reliability. To me the section seems a bit questionable—focusing somewhat heavily on alleged actions of a totally different BLP, as well as on allegations that have not been proven in court. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't have time to continue with this discussion, so I'll leave it to others for the time being. I just leave off by trying to explain, but first a question. Why is this so important to you? Do you have a personal stake in this? If so, you should read WP:Conflict of interest.
Personally, I've never heard of this guy until it was brought to this board. I did read the sources, each and every one. I've been participating at this board for a long time, and reviewing sources is what we all do here. It's really easy to tell what kind of source you're dealing with in very short order. A good source will stand out. Blogs and other sources that anybody can make are not reliable. Every news outlet has opinion/editorial columns, but those aren't reliable columns --even if the actual new articles they publish are. A real news article will give opinions of experts or other such people whose opinions really matter, and they will not only attribute those opinions to the expert, but will go out of their way to find opposing opinions and give those fair coverage too. In a really good news article you can't tell what the author's opinion is because they never let it show. It makes no difference what some writer or editor thinks. Those op/ed columns are just special-interest pieces, to fill space.
Now, besides the lack of good sourcing, there are several other problems I have seen. Some of these sources, such as the op/ed columns, say the opposite of what was written in our article. Those sources said that they believed he was innocent, and everyone who knows the subject says the allegations are crazy, and they think this woman is just greedy and trying to blackmail him. We can't just WP:Cherrypick the info we like and ignore the rest. We have to give a summary of the source as a whole. (That is, if those were good sources, but they weren't, so that's really moot in this case.) Then two of the other sources were about lawsuits against the bank, and never mention the subject. Just because he works for the bank doesn't mean he's a plaintiff in every lawsuit they get into, and we can't use that source to try to make such a connection when the source itself makes no such connection. See WP:Synthesis. That's just scratching the surface.
Now for some event to be exempt from BLPCRIME, it has to be very widely covered in reliable sources. We don't count non-reliable sources like blogs. There can't be just one or two sources reporting on it, but it needs to be widely reported as such that there's no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Lastly, and most importantly, you all have to stop calling this an "assault". That word has a very specific meaning, implying it was done with violence, and none --not one-- of the sources describes an assault nor do they even call it that (and wisely so). At best, this allegation falls under harassment, but to use the word "assault" is downright false , and that is a violation of BLP that I can't just stand by and watch. And BLP applies to talk pages too. Zaereth ( talk) 02:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
There is constant arguing over Agnew's birthday. (Here's the article history: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Chlo%C3%AB_Agnew) User:Laterthanyouthink is trying to say there's no reliable source over her birthday when we've put two separate sources
Last I checked, Twitter can be used as a reliable source if it's minimally used and not used in either of these ways: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources.
I don't think a tweet stating her birthday is "self-serving" despite what Laterthanyouthibk says. Here's the link https://mobile.twitter.com/ChloeAgnew/status/476201102908481538
And I mentioned above, I put a separate article that states the year of her birth: https://www.rsvplive.ie/news/celebs/chloe-agnew-twink-husband-david-12943255 (If you read the bottom of the article, it says "Twink married oboist David in 1983 and had two children, Chloe, born in 1989, and Naomi in 1993.')
And Later accused me of trying to own the article, when he's the one not listening.
Can you help me sort this out, I'm tired of fighting. Kay girl 97 ( talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Aleksandr Dugin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The article is packed with editorialization in place of information
1. The use of serial killer in lead seems contentious on the talk page. 2. I don't know know how much personal information is appropriate, but listing his DOB and other personal details seems excessive. 3. Referenced news articles appear largely sensationalist/speculative, and neutrality might be an issue. I haven't read the whole article, but I'm concerned it might be a target of activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pythagimedes ( talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
One editor has inserted a great deal of non- WP:RSs and WP:OR into Abigail Shrier. Here: [10] the editor has inserted self-published sources, or sources that don't directly mention Shrier or her book, which makes it WP:OR. Similar matter with this edit: [11]. The lead sentence is also non-reliably sourced. The editor has been warned of their conduct: [12], but continues to edit war and insert poorly sourced claims into a BLP. Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d ( talk) 04:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a reason for this man to have a Wikipedia article. According to the article he’s only “famous” for getting into college at a young age. In the talk page someone writes “March is a math wizard, a miracle of nature and a savant. I created this article to make him an icon of others who cannot afford to study in prestigious schools.” This doesn’t seem to be a valid reason for the page to exist. He does not have any influential articles or books, or even a job as a professor.
/info/en/?search=March_Boedihardjo
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:500:4181:590:1f2:276d:2ae:850e ( talk • contribs) 05:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
hi, Flagging that contentious and irrelevant material has been added to the page, Peter Tufano, a biography of a living person. Nasilemak1973 ( talk) 18:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Peggy Gou ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Several controversial statements sourced directly and only from Daniel Wang's recent Facebook posts are being presented as facts.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.207.9 ( talk) 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
This article is tagged as having a controversies section which may be compromising its NPOV. The most blatant case here is an alleged story from September 2001 which is cited to a dead link from 2010. This story is denied by the subject https://metro.co.uk/2010/09/13/kay-burley-i-was-surprised-to-see-peter-andre-cry-510520/ and https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/if-i-didnt-have-skin-rhino-i-might-be-offended-why-kay-burley-wont-let-trolls-bring-her-down/ . There are some mentions of this story from December 2001 in lists of quotations from the year, but I am yet to find one from the actual event.
I removed this material and was reverted immediately without an edit summary by a recent changes moderator, who I myself have reverted once. I have no intention of further reverts or 3RR. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Dana_Fischer Dana Fischer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This person is 10 years old and not a celebrity. Too much private information about the child. Might be a COPPA violation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:2801:d035:4cc2:5de5:352e:2f40 ( talk) 21:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Anindian2020 has been edit warring to retain adding contentious material in the Akbaruddin Owaisi BLP. [14] [15]
The claim they are adding is "anti-hindu and anti-national speeches" sourced at first to a YouTube video that does not pass WP:RSBLP ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU-5DJivuAU ) then to an article in India Today that does not support the claim ( https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/akbaruddin-owaisi-hate-speech-aimim-bjp-cpi-1573946-2019-07-26 )
It appears that Akbaruddin Owaisi has made multiple speeches that are controversial, and that others have accused him of being ant-hindu, but per WP:BLP such claims must be attributed, not stated as if they were established facts in Wikipedia's voice. I see several problem statements in the article that have this problem. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
(The following was moved here from my talk page. [16] -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC))
Multiple accounts continuously try to remove a well-sourced section on sexual misconduct allegations. The section been undone twice by User:Gamal Elsherbini. These are the account's only two edits. At http://faculty-alsayyad.ced.berkeley.edu/portfolio/xxa-partners.html, there is a Gamal Elsherbini listed as one of AlSayyad's frequent partners and collaborators. Furthermore, nearly the entire article was written by User:Pejiedita, which has also recently removed the section. Looking at all Pejiedita's contributions, it's clear that this account belongs to either AlSayyad or someone close to him. There's also an account, User:Madan Mehta, which has made only one edit—the most recent deletion of the sexual misconduct section. Essentially it's turning into an edit war to retain the section. Gbrkk ( talk) 22:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
A section named "Sexual misconduct charges" was repeatedly added to the article. Any attempt to
A) remove it, B) change the section title so that it does not contain the word "sexual", C) add sentences or references that present other views, D) reveal the name of the person who is behind the sexual harassment claim,
results in reversal of changes. It is not known whether AlSayyad did something inappropriate until facts are discovered. The pending court hearing might clarify things. Meanwhile media and Wikipedia are used to associate Alsayyad's name with the words "sexual harassment". People who know AlSayyad for many years can vouch that he is not that kind of person. But the student insists that he harassed her sexually. This is clearly a controversy and it would be fair to depict it as that. Is it possible to lock the article and prevent edits to show only one side of the controversy?
Thank you!
Pejiedita — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pejiedita ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Editors are invited to this discussion Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Death of Justin Berry / User:JustinBerry and to review the article Justin Berry for BLP compliance particularly in relation to their death. Note that to avoid splitting the discussion, please either comment at RSN or Talk:Justin Berry, not here. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:03, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone with rights to remove other people's edits keeps changing this biography to remove references to Hunter Biden have been appointed to the Burisma Board of Directors when his father was Vice President of the USA, and it was only after Hunter joined Burisma that Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid funds from Ukraine unless Ukraine fired Shokin who was then investigating corruption at Burisma. It is impossible to understand Shokin's firing without this factual context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DEOLES ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Joe Alwyn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page is subject to unsourced content being added at a rapid pace. To clarify: he is Taylor Swift's boyfriend, and he wrote five songs off of her last two albums, Folklore and Evermore. Since this was revealed, everyone thinks it’s ok to add “songwriter” to his professions, when it’s an unsourced claim. Also - even if they did source it, it’s still not a notable profession. It’s very tiring to revert everything.
The page is already under pending changes protection, so I don’t know what a next step could be. Nevertheless, this page is being disrupted. D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 04:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Media are reporting on an investigation by Axios, which claim a past link or suspected affairs between an possible Chinese spy, congressman Eric Swalwell and several mayors. In Wikipedia, there is now a paraphrasing of the the original article, that is only a few days old. Essentially, most of the information about Christine Fang is based on one Axios report [20] and circumstantial evidence. Fang was followed for potentially being a spy. The only facts were her interest in powerful men and politics. She may have had her own reasons for being involved, as there's no evidence of being directed by the Chinese government, and her attending San Francisco consulate functions were not secret. She was an international student, but her visa wasn't cancelled. There's not even an exit interview. Essentially she was monitored but no case was assembled against her. The only action taken was that Swalwell was advised to cut ties with her. It's possible these scandalous accusations are true, it's more likely she was just an ambitious young woman, trying to make a name for herself. We don't know her real story biographically and the matter will be tied up in salacious partisan politics.
The Wikipedia article has many sources, but as per WP:RESEARCH they are "multiple works that derive from a single source.". WP:RS says "Multiple sources should not be asserted for any wire service article. Such sources are essentially a single source" and WP:RECENT says "editors should consider whether they are simply regurgitating media coverage of an issue or actually adding well-sourced information". Referenced articles in the SF Chronicle, The Hindustan Times, Cleveland's City Beat, Politico, Fox, CNN and most of the others, specifically say they are basing their information only the Axios report, and each use the term suspected, alleged or reported. Of course, the political reaction around Swalwell will have multiple-sources, but that is irrelevant to the lack of factual and neutral biographical information about Fang. There's no real name, no birthday, no birthplace. Her situation since leaving the US is unknown. I would understand the most relevant policy here is WP:SUSPECT, in that the articles allege a crime, but there's no direct evidence or propositional case about it. Fang would not belong in the List of Chinese spy cases in the United States, none of whom have a biographical article. For the record, I have no link to anyone or any side. Travelmite ( talk) 03:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christine Fang is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christine Fang until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
I stupidly included a self-published source in this article. It was a blog by a Cambridge prof, critiquing a controversial paper. In a blog a few days later, the prof revised his criticism (still quite negative about the paper). A Ted Hill SPA added a positive fact from this new blog. I, after reading WP:BLPSPS, deleted both. Got reverted by same SPA.
Received angry e-mail from Ted Hill, addressed to my supervisor, and wish to disengage. Can any experienced editor here make sure it complies with WP:BLP? Femke Nijsse ( talk) 08:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
generally unreliable for facts. Being
primarily a publication of opinion, it can be used to source attributed opinions if there is a due weight case for including them. I doubt one opinion column (in Standpoint) pointing to another (in Quillette) really substantiates such a case. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
The IP 108.56.255.219 is repeatedly adding original research at Kristin Kreuk's page regarding a boyfriend. They have received repeated warnings over the months. I outlined the issues with the sources being used on the talk page and due to their persistent disruptive editing the page was protected, however now the protection has been removed they have resumed adding the content. I first left a comment at the talk page about this content two and a half years ago as this has been persistently added by various different users and IP addresses (some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). This particular IP first added this content back in December last year and these are the only edits they make. Can this user be blocked from editing? Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 01:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Since I created this section, the IP has again reincluded it and is clearly intent on insisting that the edit does not violate WP:NOR when it clearly does. They have been warned about it multiple times by multiple different users. Can they not be blocked? WP:BLOCKP. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 02:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Update: The IP has since been blocked from editing Kristin Kreuk's article for one year. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly adding unsourced information concerning
Jesy Nelson and
Little Mix, both BLPs, to the articles listed above. I have made a section at this noticeboard since the guidelines at
WP:BLP state Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page [,avoiding]
No original research (NOR)
. They are an IP user, so I think a temporary semi protection to both of those pages should solve problems.
D🐶ggy54321 (
let's chat!) 01:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
This article states that Van Dissel “supports deliberately infecting a significant percentage of the Dutch population to induce herd immunity,[6] despite SARS-CoV-2 antibodies only lasting a few months (thus resulting in possibility of a reinfection)”. This is a misleading representation of Van Dissel's position.
Firstly, “deliberately infecting” sounds as if Van Dissel has advocated deliberately exposing individuals to the virus, which is certainly not the case.
In the very early stages of the pandemic in March, Van Dissel advocated allowing the virus to spread to people who would not be seriously affected in order to build up herd immunity (not “deliberately infecting”), ( https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2327338-50-tot-60-procent-nederlanders-moet-corona-krijgen-voor-groepsimmuniteit.html). However, he immediately clarified this position and said that herd immunity was not the government’s primary aim. ( https://www.trouw.nl/nieuws/groepsimmuniteit-het-kabinet-wil-vooral-tijd-kopen~b26a978f/; https://www.nu.nl/coronavirus/6038428/rivm-baas-groepsimmuniteit-is-geen-doel-op-zich.html)
On 26 November 2020 Van Dissel said the idea of allowing the virus to spread among people who would not be seriously affected, as he expressed in March, had not been a real option. https://twitter.com/Nieuwsuur/status/1332068842131124226
Secondly, the sentence “despite SARS-CoV-2 antibodies only lasting a few months (thus resulting in possibility of a reinfection)” is tendentiously worded in the context and needs fact checking and updating.
Thirdly, the statement that Van Dissel “gained notoriety” as chairman of the Outbreak Management Team is tendentious. Note that this only appears on the English page and doesn’t reflect the entry on the Dutch page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micblass ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I AMM DR DAVID JUBB. REMOVE THIS CONTENT AT ONCE PLEASE. THIS IS NOT ACCURATE. I WILL UPLOAD MY OWN BIOGRAPHY. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
ECLIPSENOWJUBB (
talk •
contribs) 08:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=David_Jubb&action=edit§ion=1&editintro=Template:BLP_editintro
I AM AN INDEPENDANT JOUNALIST AND I WORK WITH THE jubbdavid and he is not happy with the content that is written about him. He is a forensic expert and is requesting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0jcquanta0 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi, there are things that I need to know about editing that I must know about that Wikipedia administrators could tell me. Please message me here and I will let you know what they are. Davidgoodheart ( talk) 05:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Meredith Perry Defamatory and libelous information about Meredith Perry that is unsourced or poorly sourced is being repeatedly inserted to this page to defame her and spread misinformation.
Link to diff
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Portcanny ( talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Idriss Aberkane The last line in the article mentions an article by Le Monde who has since been taken down because of "many alerts mentionning errors", as is (rightfully) said in the french version of the same article. I believe this is directly clashing with wikipedia's NPOV policy. Related links (first two taken from the french wikipedia's References section) : menace-theoriste.fr This link is down Libération — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:44F:E7E0:5C39:374:DB62:4A8F ( talk) 13:20, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Several users have attempted to add potentially libelous claims about the AI professor Pedro Domingos to his Wikipedia page. Most of this relates to a recent Twitter spat and is poorly sourced (no secondary sources) and not written in a neutral tone. For example, he is said to be described by defamatory epithets (too strong for a BLP) by "many in the AI community", but the source relies on two tweets only. Concerns regarding potential BLP violations are repeatedly ignored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir-lay ( talk • contribs) 10:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Afterward, some false information in a non-notable paragraph claiming that "articles of impeachment were officially issued" was merged into this article, replacing a prior sub-section, and those 3 stand-alone articles.
The same user created all 3, and an off-site "IMPEACHMENT RESOLUTION AGAINST OHIO GOVERNOR MIKE DEWINE {UNOFFICIAL WIKI}". URL: https://dewineimpeachmentwiki.weebly.com/.
This has already been the topic of 6 prior sections of the Talk:Mike DeWine to-date. Yet it persists.
In this case, merely filing something doesn't make it "officially issued". It was just a press release. No hearings. Everybody else in the legislature (and the world) condemned it. It stands out as inflammatory grandstanding.
What is our current process for formally removing non-notable nonsense and prohibiting its reinsertion, that isn't an article or a category or a rename or a template XfD? Is this it?
William Allen Simpson (
talk) 03:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Recommend an RFC on this topic, for both the DeWine & Whitmer and other bio articles, as this will pop up again & again. The big question - "Do impeachment resolutions merit their own article or do they need mentioning in a bio article?" Something like that. GoodDay ( talk) 13:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Eyes needed on this thread regarding the edit linked therein. SPECIFICO talk 15:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
An RfC has been started, Talk:Hunter_Biden#RfC_-_Mention_the_child_support_suit. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A user is continuously adding "convicted sex offender" to the first sentence of Goran Jevtić (actor)'s page, despite being reverted by a few different editors.
This is a contentious label and rarely applied to the introductory lead sentence, such as in extreme cases like Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby. But in this instance, it's not what he's known for and there's no consensus for adding that to the first sentence. His conviction (for "illegal sexual acts") is already covered in the lead and body.
For more context and detailed overview, see the report at ANI. -- 2605:8D80:6C1:1551:A9E2:4B05:6317:4CA0 ( talk) 21:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Trump's pick to replace Barr -- some IPs are POV-pushing, so more eyes could help. HouseOfChange ( talk) 03:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
This article was previously deleted in a November AfD, but has recently been recreated by Jeromi Mikhael, essentially the same as the article before the AfD. There has been more coverage since the AfD, and the deletion case is now borderline. There are various BLP related issues in the article, including the claim that their real first name is "Clay" and their Date of Birth are without adequate sourcing. The article has high levels of IP user activity, and it would be good if other users can take a look. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm flagging issues related to how Dianne Feinstein's article covers issues related to her mental health (e.g. a mental decline). The issue has been covered in reliable sources but raises BLP issues. [26] [27] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 14:29, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
We better get this right in how we handle it, for all bios of living people. With 78-year old Biden, coming in as US President next month? there's a good chance 'mental health' will resurface as a topic. GoodDay ( talk) 05:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
there shall be no paragraph regarding the mental health of Donald Trump" is in my opinion overly broad, because it has the effect of excluding any mention of the public conversation about Trump's mental health, when the focus of the RfC was actually about whether to include information about his mental health. I would understand if the RfC were to exclude text such as, "According to psychologist Dr. Bandy Lee, 'Trump's mental illness is a growing danger'", [29] but I disagree that it would be appropriate to exclude text stating that Trump called himself a "very stable genius" in response to concerns about his mental fitness, [30] or text stating that according to Psychiatric News, "columnists and op-ed writers decided en masse to diagnose [then candidate Donald Trump] with mental illness." [1] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 05:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
References
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative. Einsof ( talk) 16:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
The recent and ongoing issue with respect to Sen. Feinstein relates to the performance of her duties. These can be discussed as appropriate without tagging a diagnosis or psycho-babble terminology. The issue was raised in the 2020 campaign with respect to Joe Biden as part of a narrative to discredit him and promote the now-deprecated narratives of Tara Reade, an accuser. The Trump-labeling was just about unanimously rejected because it would have added nothing but confusion and controversy to an article that seeks to describe, not evaluate the man. The fact is that, even if a public figure is medically diagnosed, as Reagan eventually was, it adds quite little to the narrative of his words and deeds. SPECIFICO talk 17:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Dispute over unverified information, original research, and cherry-picking sources in an attempt to support that original research.
She received mostly favorable reviews. [1] For example, Courtney Howard, in Variety, commented: "She ropes us into the mystery of her character reveal with heaping amounts of magnetism and grounded authenticity. It’s no surprise that the music-driven scenes really showcase her power". [2] [3]
References
She received mostly favorable reviews
is not verified, and original research.
I realize that there's no easy way to pick and choose what reviews to mention. I hope we agree that they should be about her performance, published by a highly prominent reviewer. Having just one review quoted, a positive one, seems to support the unverified information. Bundling references to positive reviews and tacking on a reference to a negative review is not proper POV. -- Hipal ( talk) 17:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
She received many favorable reviews during it's premiere.[35]. -- Hipal ( talk) 18:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The consensus on VanderWaal's Talk page addresses this issue, and it does not merit a rehashing on this board. Somambulant1 ( talk) 00:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Hipal, your endless forum-shopping and inability to read English is tiresome. There is no WP:V or WP:OR issue here. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 00:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page. |
I am a fan of Lola Astanova and periodically I add information to her page with references to open media sources. Over the past several months, several people constantly make arbitrary changes to my additions and never providing any reasoning or references for changes.
1. The constantly change the year of birth from 1985 (as I reference in a Haute Living magazine article) to 1982.
2. They constantly change the country of birth from USSR or Soviet Union to Uzbek SSR, which was NOT a country, but rather a region of the USSR where Ms. Astanova was born. It is inaccurate to call it "Uzbek SSR" by any measure.
3. They removed information regarding Ms. Astanova's duet of Hauser of the 2cellos, regarding her film project with Andrea Bocelli and David Foster, regarding her electronic music release by Sony Music earlier this year. All that information was referenced by public sources and is easily verifiable through iTunes, YouTube and other platforms where those projects are available. Removal of that information with for no reason and with no explanation appears malicious. The people doing it appear to have an agenda and they are not sticking to just listing the facts with public source references. I am asking to please look into these changes and help protect the page's accuracy and integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPS1965 ( talk • contribs) 21:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Can someone help me out with an annoying edit war at Antony Blinken (and also virtually every other page that Jacksonshatek has contributed to lately? They are insisting that infoboxes should not indicate these people's presumptive positions in the Biden administration. I don't know whether infoboxes for incoming government personnel should or shouldn't include their presumptive titles, but the amount of constant back-and-forth on this is getting a little ridiculous. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Forgive the ping, but I've noticed that
Tartan357 has identified at least one bit of consensus that might help here. They've been pointing out on a number of these pages that
Template:Infobox officeholder/doc notes: The infobox for an incumbent officeholder should not mention an elected or designated successor, or the end date of the term, until the transition actually takes place.
I don't know if this represents a longstanding consensus or just one template-doc-writer's view, but it's something. It also doesn't settle the general question of how people should be referred to outside the infobox. [Such-and-such]–designate seems a popular choice, but that seems at least OR-adjacent to me since I don't recall any sources referring to anyone as [Secretary of X]-designate. It's OK as a compromise position, I guess.
AleatoryPonderings (
???) (
!!!) 16:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Biden has announced that Blinken et al will be his nominees. This is not the speculation of a few Wikipedia editors. It is also not our responsibility if
a lot of people will only look at the infobox and take it as the here and now, unless we say that Blinken has assumed office as Secretary of State.
the presumptive nomineeuntil January 21;
the nomineeafter January 21 (or whenever the nomination occurs); and, of course,
the, e.g.,
Secretary of Stateonce they're confirmed. But this seems overly pedantic and difficult to police.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AleatoryPonderings ( talk • contribs) 21:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
nominee, without qualification, seems fine to me. As GoodDay notes below, we should do this consistently everywhere. I guess I !vote for
nomineein all cases. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 22:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
presumptive nominee, with
nominee(unqualified) as second choice. Would give us a uniform rule to apply in these scenarios without having to parse individual RS once a nomination has been made to see if they say "nominee" without qualification or with some qualification. If this is adopted, we should say "presumptive nominee" or "nominee" (as the case may be) absolutely everywhere in the article—there should be no inconsistency between infobox and body. AleatoryPonderings ( ???) ( !!!) 23:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I still think, for the infobox, we should wait until he actually gets the job. The problem I see with "presumptive nominee" is that, while we all know what that means (because we're talking about it), the average reader is going to look at that and say, "WTF?". It's like calling someone "a little bit pregnant". You either are or you aren't. The infobox should list the person's current profession, period. I don't see any good reason why we should rush it. It's already in the article for those who want to know more, but the infobox is just a list of basic attributes. Zaereth ( talk) 23:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place(emphasis in text). We are not mentioning the date here, and my reading of WP:CRYSTAL is that the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Sdrqaz ( talk) 02:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Do you both want the articles protected or editors blocked?, I have no idea what you're even trying to say. KidAd talk 01:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I speak on the legal and professional behalf of Quinton Flynn and his affiliates. I am requesting the removal of edit history concerning the removal of a libelous claim sourced by a gossip magazine. We are ensuring the complete removal of content online concerning defamatory and libelous claims made regarding Quinton Flynn, a public figure.
I would like more information on how we can prevent these libelous claims from the online gossip magazine and appearing on Flynn's Wikipedia entry again. I'd also like to know if we can request a lock on any editing to his profile for a period of time. Locking the article from editing will be a massive help in combatting the claims, and ensuring that his Wikipedia article is a source of accurate information, cited with legitimate sources.
Thanks for your help, I look forward to speaking with someone soon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Quinton_Flynn&diff=prev&oldid=995313727 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:7D0:54E0:3182:F782:6BB8:1AF6 ( talk) 11:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The page is filled with libelous content. While some portion of the controversy section on the page is relevant, most of it is disgruntled rant and does not comply with WP:BLP. A neutral editor will be best suited to clean up the page. Aayan.v ( talk) 15:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
At a glance, the article seems too much an attack page. Careful review of the references would be a good start. Any that fail BLP requirements should be removed. Any unreferenced content should be removed. -- Hipal ( talk) 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I found this citation-less and source-less bio. Seems rather non-notable. Are there any concerns I should know about before nominating for deletion? Spongecob Flairpants ( talk) 09:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
There have been repeated additions of Mika Tosca's past name, contrary to MOS:DEADNAME. I will try to address the issue on the article's Talk page, but would appreciate some assistance. Thank you. Beccaynr ( talk) 14:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
This individual does not seem to be notable. Am I wrong? I wanted some feedback before I started a deletion proposal. Spongecob Flairpants ( talk) 05:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
this piece on Aseem Malhotra is shocking! He is a highly respected cardiologist awarded a fellowship to the Royal College of Physicians for his work and contribution to medicine Dec 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.3.159.232 ( talk) 00:41, 23 December 2020 (UTC)