This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Michael Shermer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors (with COI?) may be blocking references to controversy
I was researching this person having heard of his work for the first time today and, after reading the (very detailed and somewhat promotional) Wikipedia article, discovered elsewhere that he is the subject of fairly widely reported (especially given his relative obscurity) allegations about misogyny and worse, and that these controversies have spilled over into, for example, protests at some of his speaking engagements. There is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, but on the talk page there are clear attempts by some editors to make mention of them, with lengthy and fairly aggressive rebuttals by others. The argument against including them in this article appears to be based on the claim that BLPs cannot mention Me Too allegations, and pejorative-heavy claims that the sources, which include a lengthy and apparently well documented Buzzfeed article, are not reliable. I was unable to find out what the BLP policy is regarding "Me Too" allegations, but the arguments on the talk page seem (a) specious—other BLPs on Wikipedia mention similar allegations— and (b) are so defensive and argumentative that the editors making them appear to have a COI or relationship with the subject. While Wikipedia articles cannot and should not try to adjudicate such claims, the total absence of them in the article seems like subject-serving omission, rather than good encylopedic practice, and did me a disservice when researching the subject. I would be grateful if someone who is expert in Wikipedia BLPs could take a look at this article and decide whether any edits are justified.
PS The article also seems to be bloated with far more detail than is merited by the subject's notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.114.79 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a RfC about the level of detail of the 2015 allegations against James Deen that is appropriate for his article given BLP considerations. [2] The history of this dispute can be seen at [3]. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Was I being too overzealous here with my application/enforcement of BLP? A week ago, I reverted some category additions from the previous few days which had made assertions unverified in the body of the article. At the time, I believed the additions to be BLP violations, but now I'm not so sure — the subject is an avowed member of the KKK, and therefore the added categories could conceivably apply to the subject; a couple of them could've been suggested by a quote from the subject in the article. However, I felt uncomfortable with most of the new categories remaining in the article because they were not directly referenced to any sources. Admittedly, I neither checked the sources already present, nor looked for any new sources myself. At the time, I felt that — and please correct me if I'm wrong — my not doing so did not matter because none of the sources had been used to reference the specific claims in question, one major example being the alleged ANP membership; the article made no mention of the ANP. Also, maybe I'm being arrogant, but frankly there are many things I would rather do, on Wikipedia and in general, than work on an article about a white supremacist. I meant to write this post several days ago but have been very busy IRL. Thank you for any constructive feedback, Dylan620 ( talk) 23:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I am the communications director for Jason Miyares, Attorney General -elect of Virignia. I have his official headshot, which is used on our social media, and would like it to be his Wikipedia picture, but users keep changing it. Can I please give you this headshot, which matches his twitter and facebook, and then have it locked?
Aseem Malhotra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greetings. I have some serious concerns about the article at hand. Dr. Malhotra's page has recently been expanded significantly by a Viv Hamilton ( talk · contribs), who has returned to Wikipedia after about a ten years' hiatus, and now evidently has a chip on their shoulder wrt. to Dr. Malhotra. I don't maintain privately a strong position on Dr. Malhotra, but I do believe that our biography ought to be neutral and dispassionate. It now almost reads as a RationalWiki entry, replete with invective and ridicule. Take for instance the detailed descriptions of his parents, and how their dietary considerations may or may not have impacted their longevity:
Malhotra was born in New Delhi in India in October 1977, the younger son of two doctors: Kailash Chand and Anisha Malhotra. The family moved to Britain in 1978 when his father had a clinical attachment at Alder Hey Hospital and was studying for a Diploma in Tropical Medicine at Liverpool University Both parents became General Practitioners in Ashton-under-Lyme, Greater Manchester. In 1988, Malhotra's brother Amit, who was two year's older than Malhotra, and had been born with Down's Syndrome died of heart failure aged thirteen. This inspired Malhotra with the ambition to become a cardiologist. Malhotra was educated at Manchester Grammar School. Malhotra's father went on to become the first Asian to be elected as honorary vice-president and deputy chair of the council of the British Medical Association and received an O.B.E for long-standing service to the NHS. Malhotra has said that he had a unique relationship with his father, who was his best friend and the most loving and amazing father. Malhotra's mother's religious faith was important to her and Malhotra observed that she fasted weekly by only consuming one meal on a fast day. She died in 2018 aged 68 after several years of illness when she was cared for by her husband. Three months later, Malhotra who blamed her obesity, years of illness and premature death on her vegetarian diet that he said was high in sugar and ultra-processed foods and low in protein said "I very much hope that her premature and painful death was not in vain and we can learn that much of these ills are preventable." Malhotra's father died suddenly in 2021 after suffering a cardiac arrest.
As you can see, this paragraph is barely grammatical, and indicative of the entire article's many problems. I suggest that the entire article be rewritten, observing English grammatical norms and our BLP policy. Note that the page has been increased from roughly 16k bytes to 40k in a couple months. I seriously doubt that Viv Hamilton is the correct custodian for this particular biography. Thank you. Nutez ( talk) 07:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Róbert Wessman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While I was working on the IRC helpdesk a user reported this, claiming it was defamatory: The article implies that the CEO of an pharmaceutical company may have been guilty of criminal acts. According to the sources he may have been cleared of these crimes. I have not had time to fully review this article. I advised the user to make an edit request, but in the meantime it may help if expert eyes can review the current state of the article. Salimfadhley ( talk) 15:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Can some people please have look at the edit war + edit summaries at Anuna De Wever, and to a lesser degree at Christine Lagarde. In both cases, it is about sourced but WP:UNDUE negative issues (for De Wever a stupid tweet for which she received some backlash, for Lagarde a conviction for negligence for which she didn't even receive a penalty) and how and where in the article to report them. Fram ( talk) 10:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Defamatory statements are included: "Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of a sexual assault allegation in the Church laid against another bishop..." (para 2; footnotes 3 and 4). No such allegation is against the bishop in the court where the trial of the case is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomytomthomas ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Joseph Kallarangatt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Defamatory statements are made against Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt. Vandalism is felt: "During the police investigation, he was brought in for questioning and stated that the nun had only made a verbal complaint with him and not a written one" (footnote 19). The bishop, who belongs to Palai diocese of the Syro Malabar Church, is not the proper authority of the nun who works in the Latin Diocese of Jalandar, Punjab. Again the bishop has stated that the nun hasn't referred anything to rape or sexual harassment she faced from bishop Franco mulackal. The trial of the case is going on. And the name of Bishop Kallarangatt is not at all in the charge sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunmathewleo ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
He is not charged with covering up. The source article from the Hindu does not make any mention of such an allegation. As part of the investigation, he was asked to testify as a witness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.74.184 ( talk) 08:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain the BLP policy on "contentious" unsourced material to me? I haven't found any definition of what "contentious" means in a WP context. Disagreements between editors? Between public figures? Something else?
This question is prompted by the article linked in this section header, which has no inline citations whatsoever (all footnotes are to the list items from "awards" and below). My understanding was that the general policy is "when in doubt, remove it", but pretty extensive copy edits have been done on this and no citations added or talk page remarks to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilvering ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the neutrality of the biography about Sarah-Lee Heinrich that led to full-protection of the page and a discussion at ANI ( permanent link). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 11:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
More eyes would be appreciated at Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, where a few IPs have been pushing some negatively-slanted original synthesis about what how the subject's h-index compares to others in physics based on the distributions reported in an unrelated arXiv paper for a few months now. (The sources cited in past edits include a link to a video by YouTube commentator Gad Saad where he expresses dislike of CPW, so I presume that's what's driving people.) There seem to me to be obvious BLP concerns w/ using poorly-sourced cite stats without any actual coverage in secondary RS anyway; we certainly don't do this for comparable bios like Katie Mack (astrophysicist) or Neil deGrasse Tyson and it can be confusing to interpret for different subfields of physics/differing career lengths, between databases etc. so it's not clear it adds anything but confusion. — 0xf8e8 💿 ( talk) 20:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Corey Benjamin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corey Benjamin, a retired basketball player, has been in the news lately since a video of his daughter became viral. Multiple ip addresses have inserted the incident and his alleged history of domestic violence into his biography afterwards. I have removed the incident with his daughter under WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME and also the domestic violence allegations due to poor sourcing. [4] Even though the page is now semi-protected, please keep an eye on the article. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 21:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see the "move" button as an anonymous user. Please help to edit this page [ Tesfaye|here]. The page title should be Danial Fesshaye - NOT Daniel Tesfaye. The URL should also reflect the new name. This page is semi-protected but I have a picture of the official IOC Card with the correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyimam ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Defamatory statement and Vandalism are evident in the second paragraph of the article: "Kallarangatt has been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government"
1. The footnotes 3,4 and 5 speaks of another bishop 2. Footnote 3 is a tabloid article from The News Minute refers to sexual allegation against another bishop (Bishop Franco) and also claims that Church tries to hide illegal wealth through political coalition. Both these observations are used indiscriminately against Joseph Kallarangatt. 3. Footnote 4 from The Telegraph Online is all about declining population of Christians in Kerala and its electoral impact 4. Footnote 5 has nothing to say about sexual assault and corruption. 5. In short, the tabloid, one sided articles are used to create a gossip trio: "sexual assault-corruption allegation-Hindutva movement" in the very opening of the article. 6. In fact, the themes love jihad and narco jihad are added in the article at the right place as the article proceeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straightwrite ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear administrators and editors, I have found the following articles under the category of Sinhalese military personnel which are a content considerable amount of unsourced content or poorly sourced content. Pls, help to improve these articles or remove the unsourced information of biographies of living persons. Also, I feel that some of the articles are on low-profile individuals. I highly appreciate your guidance and suggestion as a new member.
2407:C00:D002:D468:24F1:5711:35B9:751F ( talk) 15:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Remove the reference that Joseph Kallarangatt is involved in the covering up of sexual allegation. The links to the charge sheet against bishop Franco is here: https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2020/08/13/charge-sheet-nun-rape-case-bishop-franco-mulakkal.html and https://theprint.in/india/police-file-chargesheet-against-bishop-franco-mulakkal-in-kerala-nun-rape-case/219243/ Remove all the erroneous claims in the article that connects joseph Kallarangatt with Bishop Franco mulakkal caseEzhuth (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Ezhuth ( talk) 09:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This article appears to be largely edited by one user who has edited only this page. It appears to be a self-promotion, especially the "personal" section that contains a lengthy "defense" against criminal charges.
Some examples:
"By all measures, the I/UCRC center led by Lee was a tremendous success in terms of its technical progress, educational value, and societal impact. with numerous projects garnered practice excellence awards."
"The NSF Office of Inspector General disagreed with the counting of membership. They considered only cash flow into Georgia Tech as membership fee."
"On September 18, 2019 the National Science Foundation General Council issued a final Notice of Administrative Action regarding the NSF Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation, Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney's office refused to drop charges."
"During sentencing, hospital and academic leaders described Lee as a truly gifted and selfless individual with extraordinary talents, exceptional heart, and full of love for others, who works tirelessly for the community and for the world; an individual who is committed to serving the minorities and the disadvantaged."
"The case is unusual in multiple aspects: The non-compliance of NSF Office of Inspector General investigators; the refusal of U.S. Attorney to dismiss the charges; the repeated denial of Georgia Tech administrators to requests from top U.S. health officials to restore Lee's access to her computers while COVID-19 rages across the country."
The rest of the article also reads like a self-promotion and/or CV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3ec0:1650:d05e:65c:f8c9:66b3 ( talk) 00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I note the vandalism and BLP violation within the last hour here on the Leslie Phillips page. The IP address 96.18.6.194 is not here to build an encyclopedia. Every single edit of theirs going as far back as 12 months ago is petty vandalism, so no use trying to reason with said IP. Can an administrator please block? Thanks -- Jkaharper ( talk) 21:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Parakrama Pannipitiya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.
Brent Coon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The VRT team have been asked to bring this article for community discussion to see if the article complies with BLP and other community policies. The concerns / claims raised in the request include the following:
If there's a more appropriate venue for this discussion, please feel free to move the thread accordingly. ‑‑ ElHef ( Meep?) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
This page about Harry Hill contains a mess of potentially libellous, weasel-worded material, Some of it is sourced, but not always at the appropriate place. Needs an independent editor's eye. Vizjim ( talk) 16:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The contradictions in the BLP "Joseph Kallarangatt". The article in the second paragraph claims about sexual assault and corruption allegation based on footnotes 7,8 and 9. The corruption allegation is based on the article "The right turn by a section of Kerala’s Catholic church is sheer opportunism". A single statement is made by Indulekha Joseph that "There are many allegations the church faces currently, including corruption and sexual offences”. How does this single quote be included in the BLP of Joseph Kallarangatt against him? There is no mention that there is corruption allegation against Joseph Kallarangatt, Please refer the footnote no. 7 https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/right-turn-section-kerala-s-catholic-church-sheer-opportunism-155406
About sexual assault the contradiction is as follows: the term sexual assault is used in paragraph 2 of the article gives the impression that Joseph Kallarangatt has done the assault. Again the matter is referred under the title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church". Here it is claimed that Joseph Kallarangatt has approached by the nun based on footnote 13 https://caravanmagazine.in/gender-sexuality/bishop-franco-mulakkal-kerala-nun-rape-case-protests But the very footnote 14 which is from The Hindu, a leading newspaper in India, takes a different report. It claims that bishop said that the nun had made verbal reference about the complaint, not any written complaint. It never says that the bishop delayed anything or covered up anything. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/nun-complained-to-me-pala-bishop/article24422306.ece
The title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church" itself is inappropriate in the write-up about Joseph Kallarangatt since he has nothing to do with the controversies itself that it should be in his BLP. The first paragraph under this title talks about Franco Mulakkal, a bishop of the Latin rite, India. The BLP of a person should contain events that require direct involvement of the person. There is purposeful attempt to defame the person. Sheer vandalism is detected. Whenever a positive information is added just by adding a name about his alma mater, it is deleted instantly. What about the right of good name of a person in Wikipedia when the concerned person may not be a privileged editor. Ezhuth ( talk) 10:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
While researching conflict of interest concerns involving
Lightburst I discovered that they had created a biography of lawyer
John Travena. COI concerns aside, it appears that the article may have been created only to attack Trevena's ex-wife in relation to a domestic violence incident. Right from the start, the "personal life" section
contained claims that the ex-wife was a user of "methamphetamine and heroin and other illicit drugs". Trevena was arrested for domestic battery in March 2019. The articles was created in May 2019 and Light burst continued to edit the personal life section to add even more detail to accusations against the ex-wife (for example,
these additions in December 2019). I have
removed the section entirely since it did not provide any information outside of that dispute. Trevena's wife is not a high-profile individual and the allegations are just allegations, so I believe this is a violation of WP:BLP. I would appreciate it if other editors could review my actions. Thank you.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk) 20:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked
:::
Lightburst, saying that the next thread about you will be at ANI is not a threat. It is simply what happens when a user continues to ignore discussions of their actions.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk) 21:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::I think you may have misunderstood what was going on. It appears to me that the intention was not to make Trevena "look bad by association" but to smear his wife and balance out the domestic violence charge.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked
I've given the personal life section a once over. I removed the super obvious BLPVIO Trevena's wife, Meredith Lynn Recio and the boyfriend of the former Trevena employee broke into the Trevena law firm. They stole a check which they forged and cashed for $8,500 dollars. Trevena told police that they also stole a .44 caliber handgun.
That stated as fact someone had committed a crime based on an allegation. I tried to clear out the names as well. The whole section should probably be removed per
WP:DUE and
WP:BLP, as there are no convictions, no resolutions to lawsuits and, as Zaereth has said, it's tabloid trash.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to add that the AFD for this article shows yet more problems with the Article Rescue Squaderon - the state of the article at nomination [6] shows the BLP problems identified above, but 3 of the major members of ARS jumped to say "keep" even pointing out the domestic violence coverage as a reason to keep, which is not what we cover per BLPCRIME. So the argument "this survived an AFD" has no weight here - we judge BLP issues at the state the article is currently in, as that is a top-level priority for us. -- Masem ( t) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Not at all clear BLPCRIME applies as this is a nationally known "prominent" lawyer who is not magically immune from sources that cover controversies they have been involved in. I've started talk page discussions with additional sources. -- Green C 23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
To no one's surprise, OP has been CU blocked. Levivich 23:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This BLP is completely unsourced except for one reference that I added. The sections about marriage and career contain unsourced defamatory claims about the person as demonstrated in the diffs given here, here and here. -- Netha (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This subject is not notable, by any means. It is a vanity, possibly commissioned, article. This article has been deleted once and nominated for deletion twice. Now certain individuals are undoing edits in both the article and the discussion page. It should be, once again, deleted and, in the meantime, protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaMillbard ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The following content has been added at Alex Saab:
It is sourced to two twitter posts. I have removed the content twice ( [8] and [9]) but it has been restored. There is a discussion on Alex Saab's talk page about the content at [10]. Disregarding the issue of lack of consensus, there is the issue of using Twitter as a source for claims about third parties. The text makes statements about Saab's defence team and Rev. Ramos Teixeira. Our policy says, among other things, that Twitter "may be used as sources of information about themselves, ... so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties". Burrobert ( talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
References
Whilst patrolling recent changes, I saw that User:Surabhilak has requested in an edit summary ( Special:Diff/1056331089) we suppress details of her marital history (which were referenced to a RS). Normally for a performer trying to massage their information for publicity reasons I would revert, but am concerned that marriage and divorce can be a sensitive topic. Would welcome opinions from those more experienced in the area. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Ashleigh Barty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Whoever oversees this article repeatedly removes 'Indigenous' from the first line of text, claiming that her heritage is covered (later in the article) in: "She is ranked No. 1 in the world in singles by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and is the second Australian WTA singles No. 1 after fellow Indigenous Australian player Evonne Goolagong Cawley." This line of text is easily misinterpreted in regard to her heritage, where the 'fellow' tennis player could be easily interpreted as simply relating to their careers, or even more easily skipped over entirely in reading. It is Wikipedia's role to provide clear biographical information, and it's incredibly important that Indigenous Australians with a platform are recognised for their heritage. There is absolutely no harm that could come with making Barty's heritage clearer, she is a proud Indigenous woman, and we should not be trying to bury that piece of information in a confusingly worded paragraph. I do not understand why the editor keeps erasing edits which clarify Barty's Indigenous heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.229.112 ( talk) 01:14, 22 Nov 2021 (UTC)
As of now, police have a "person of interest" and there is no suspect. The name or any details about this person have not been released. The talk page has a section naming whom they believe to be the suspect. I believe even naming this person is a violation of BLP given how serious the incident is and that nothing has been confirmed by authorities. It's all internet speculation which might be wrong.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 10:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Rosenbaum is not a living person and does not fall under BLP. It should be allowed to add the well-sourced information about his previous convictions, which were also brought up in the trial about this case. Rosenbaum was a [redacted], which is relevant to that article because 1. it was relevant in the court and 2. he died while chasing a minor. Source: [1]
2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E ( talk) 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Everyone, please recall that WP:BLP (and WP:BDP) applies to talk pages and noticeboards as well as the articlespace. While it is reasonable to have a discussion about whether this content ought to be included, describing details of alleged crimes without any reliable sources is not. And please note that reliable is a key word here— WP:RSP and WP:RSN are good starting points if you are new to evaluating source reliability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Enough of Rosenbaum's criminal history in reliable sources that's its fair game for the article. I dont see why this is so controversial. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 02:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Rosenbaum's sex offender status is not a rumour, it is a fact backed by reliable sources including CNN. [13] But it was not permitted as evidence, nor were historical videos of Rittenhouse. [14] However, I don't see by what precedent we're not allowed to mention things that weren't evidence in a trial. We have a whole article on a victim of a murder, George Floyd, which covers material unrelated to him being murdered, including historical crimes which had no connection to him being murdered in broad daylight 14 years later. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It has been claimed that describing Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" in Brookings Institution is a BLP policy violation.
Specifically: In rolling back edits of Brookings Institution in which I described Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" — @SPECIFICO ( reversion) and @Valjean ( reversion) have described this text as a BLP violation.
1) Insofar as I understand BLP policy, the disputed "indicted Steele dossier source" text is not a BLP violation.
2) *If* the disputed text *was* a BLP policy violation then the place to object to "indicted Steele dossier source" would be in the Igor Danchenko article where description of Danchenko's indictment appears.
3) I've attempted to elicit from @Valjean and @SPECIFICO their reasoning for their claims of a BLP policy violation but I have been unsuccessful.
Am I correct that "... indicted Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko ..." appearing in /info/en/?search=Brookings_Institution is not a BLP policy violation?
More discussion of this issue can be seen at /info/en/?search=Talk:Brookings_Institution#Former_Brooking_analyst_Igor_Danchenko_was_indicted_for_lying_to_the_FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
My reasoning has been expressed in these comments:
I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well. It's a gratuitous and unnecessary editorial attack where it's irrelevant. This is not a situation where a known quack is described as a pusher of pseudoscientific nonsense in their bio article and that description is repeated in an article about the pseudoscience they push. Such mention is justified because it is relevant in both places. This is very different as Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article. They are relevant at Igor Danchenko, Steele dossier, Russia investigation origins counter-narrative#Durham inquiry and John Durham#Indictment of Steele dossier source, but not Brookings Institution. Just because something is a fact does not justify using it where it's not relevant. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
First, I'll clarify I should have said our content policies and guidelines.
Anyway as for your question have you read BLP? The very first sentence says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
NPOV is one of the 3 core policies listed there. UNDUE weight is a subsection of NPOV. COATTRACK is an essay but it primarily relates to compliance with NPOV and specifically mentions "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed.
" Yes this part isn't as clear cut about the relevance of material about living persons in articles that aren't biographies but ultimately it's an essay relating as I said mostly to compliance with NPOV. And as BLP itself clearly says it applies to any material about living persons anywhere, including on this page BTW.
In some cases it can be helpful to discuss problems about articles in other places, even if they relate to material on living persons e.g. WP:RSN, WP:FTN or yes even WP:NPOVN but there should be no question about the relevance of BLPN and BLP when the concerns relate to what we say about some living person. There is no bright line, it's never okay to violate our content policies and harm a living person just because you're doing it on some other page or in some way which isn't directly addressed in BLP.
If material about a living person can be covered in one page where it's relevant and in context but cannot be in another page because it's irrelevant and out of context then yes this is a BLP violation. You're violating BLP which clearly says we must get articles right in the parts which concern living persons and ensure we comply with NPOV in relation to material on living persons.
This doesn't mean all such violations should be brought up here or even that it's necessary to bring up BLP. Often discussion on the article talk page is sufficient and if it's not sometimes other noticeboards or dispute mechanisms may be appropriate and it's not necessary to bring up BLP. (For example, in some cases it might be fine to simply start a RfC.) However any editor editing something about a living person should always have BLP at the back of their mind and while it's fine to suggest it might be better to resolve some dispute elsewhere, I don't think it should ever be said that concerns about our coverage of a living person are off-topic on BLPN.
A final point which since the concern here is NPOV which is directly address by BLP is largely irrelevant. But since I said it. If any editor wants to dispute whether violation of other policies besides BLP itself, NPOV,
WP:V and
WP:NOR are BLP violations since it doesn't really mention this (discounting the limited mentions e.g. of our external link guideline). Well I'll first point out it says "We must get the article right
". And I'd say getting the article right must include complying with out other policies (and generally our guidelines). It also says "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.
" so again recognition compliance with our content policies for material about living persons is a must.
Nil Einne ( talk) 08:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Bernard Rhodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that but unfortunately Real Punk Rockers has again reinstated the middle name Gary without any reference point. If this could be dealt with again please because all requests for Real Punk Rocker to provide source material are ignored — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Attention needed at Jameela Jamil, where a lengthy conspiratorial personal life section aims to imply, using extreme synthesis and poor sources such as Instagram users, that Jamil is a serial liar and maybe even has Münchhausen syndrome, when no reliable source makes these claims in their own words. BLP violations have been made on the talk page, even by a user who is actually in favor of (mostly) redacting the section. A BLP-compliant personal life rewrite by me in this diff has been reverted. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
References
help with Author's Mikey Walsh biography section- it states that the Author 'suffers from Poor mental health & social anxiety disorder.', but is false information, & the cited links they are using for that statement are for reviews and interviews in regards to authors books, but not on this statement, which makes it false. the Articles belong on the page, as they are, all based on Authors books, and can be added to any other statement in the biography, but the "mental health" statement, has no cited, or truthful base. There are accounts that change this page in bad faith, from casting false cited opinion to even changing the persons name. is there any way more protection can be done? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.183.168 ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
(This was auto-archived, not sure why.)
This article appears to be largely edited by one user who has edited only this page. It appears to be a self-promotion, especially the "personal" section that contains a lengthy "defense" against criminal charges.
Some examples:
"By all measures, the I/UCRC center led by Lee was a tremendous success in terms of its technical progress, educational value, and societal impact. with numerous projects garnered practice excellence awards."
"The NSF Office of Inspector General disagreed with the counting of membership. They considered only cash flow into Georgia Tech as membership fee."
"On September 18, 2019 the National Science Foundation General Council issued a final Notice of Administrative Action regarding the NSF Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation, Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney's office refused to drop charges."
"During sentencing, hospital and academic leaders described Lee as a truly gifted and selfless individual with extraordinary talents, exceptional heart, and full of love for others, who works tirelessly for the community and for the world; an individual who is committed to serving the minorities and the disadvantaged."
"The case is unusual in multiple aspects: The non-compliance of NSF Office of Inspector General investigators; the refusal of U.S. Attorney to dismiss the charges; the repeated denial of Georgia Tech administrators to requests from top U.S. health officials to restore Lee's access to her computers while COVID-19 rages across the country."
The rest of the article also reads like a self-promotion and/or CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.88.101 ( talk) 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Contentious material ✅
about living persons ✅
unsourced ✅
must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page ✅
especially if potentially libellous ✅
Here is the diff that restores the libel
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1057268053
67.174.115.222 ( talk) 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
We need to stop classifying murder based on a failed justice system, nor what weak lawsuit-avoiding terminology the press uses. This case exemplifies this again.That's literally saying that they are using the legal term, and the article subject is still a murderer, despite the result of a trial. I think there's some wiggle room if the use followed what you're describing, but that is specifically not what we're dealing with here. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead
I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.
Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpointsuggests BLP issues on the part of the poster, more than anything else. But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of an article that had seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Various IPs from the range 2a01:cb05:8ad0:3d00:, not just the one listed above, have removed Khalid Skah's personal life and family sections several times since 11 October. They have put in their edit summaries, "I would like to keep my private life preserve [ sic]", "Khalid Skah doesnt want his private life in wikipedia", and "stop publishing a bullshit stories [ sic]". — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 14:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I have reason to believe that this page was created in bad faith by an editor who has not disclosed a Conflict of Interest. In the interest of transparency, I am acting on behalf of Róbert Wessman, the article subject, which is why I have not nominated the page directly.
The article was created and substantially edited by Haeito1010 in August. The first thing that raised suspicion of COI is that this User has only created two articles, possibly making them a single purpose account. They have a rather basic User page too, avoiding revealing too much personal information, but also making significant use of templates.
They used their sandbox in an extremely unusual way, uploading a word at a time:
or a batch of characters at a time:
Their total edit count is 765, 742 of which are to the sandbox. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that this may have been an attempt to inflate the edit count and look artificially more proficient as an editor. It is also plausible to assume the editor was copying and pasting from a draft, given that in example 5 they uploaded a sequence of characters (%C3%ADa/oG49AQAAIAAJ?), which is not naturalistic.
On August 22nd Haeito1010 made an edit changing the content of their sandbox from a draft on the composer Juan María Guelbenzu Fernández to a draft on Wessman. This time they did not upload in small chunks, but as a long form page with an Infobox. This again suggests that the editor had a draft ready to upload: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3AHaeito1010%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=1040091856&oldid=1031837718
After this, the draft was moved (again in chunks!) to mainspace, the sandbox was blanked, and Haeito1010 has not used their sandbox since. Indeed, they have not edited at all since 22 August, when they made 12 edits to the article on Róbert Wessman. This suggests to me that all of their activity was designed solely to create this page.
The only other pages they have worked on are Sociedad de Cuartetos and Alvogen, both of which have a connection to the pages this user has created. However, as Fernández died in 1886, it seems more likely that they would be paid to work on Wessman.
The article should be deleted as it imparts little information about Wessman himself that would be classed as encyclopaedic. References 1, 2, 6, and 8 are from primary sources, 7 is clearly biased, and references 12 and 14 are dead. There are also some nebulous statements which need sourcing and don’t have any: “The actual ownership of the company was somewhat unclear for around a decade's time”. This would be poor for an article which falls under WP:BLP in any case, but given the strange behaviour of the account creator, I would suggest that the page be deleted and created from scratch again, if Wessman is considered notable enough.
Noemimanical ( talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never edited this article but it came to my attention when I gave someone a DS alert and noticed this (which has been slightly changed since added). "Beschloss has been characterized by some as a " left-wing historian" for bias in favor of the Democratic Party. [1] [2]"
I've explained to the editor that "some" can be a problem and normally should be attributed. The "Elegant News" source is an anonymous story written in broken English on a site with no evident oversite. The Fox site has an author, but is that sufficient? There is also an SPA who has edited it and that of his wife for years, User:Wikillinois - the same state where the subjects live. I'm thinking of blocking that editor from the two articles, allowing them to use the talk page. I don't intend to edit the article myself. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Dear team, I think the photo on the Wiki page for Rachel Parris, British comedian, is not actually her? Having only just joined Wiki, I am unsure how to resolve this, other than informing you.
Many thanks Kenny61ag ( talk) 22:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Stephen Marglin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The Career section contains two paragraphs without any citations regarding the subject's most recent book, some of which seems to be a summary of said book, phrased not as a description of the book's contents or its arguments, but as fact. The Personal Life section contains no citations and lists the subject's children and their occupations, including a child who is listed as a recent high school graduate and another as a current college student. From the edit history, it appears that this article was edited several times by a Smarglin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.99.239.36 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Sarath Weerasekara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): This article is mainly based on unsourced content. Pls, help to improve this article or remove unsourced sourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:ab29:74b5:b961:7cef:dcc1 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Wasantha Karannagoda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:d468:24f1:5711:35b9:751f ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Roshan Goonetileke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:d468:24f1:5711:35b9:751f ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This list repeatedly uses names of suspects of serious crimes with no indication of conviction. Many of the sources are just republications of press releases and similar low quality sources. There's also a significantly promotional tone to the whole article, but that is a separate issue.
Unfortunately, I'm editing on mobile right now, so I cannot go at the article with a machete. If appreciate if anyone else could take a look at this and see if they agree with my BLP concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the article to "List of people convicted of crimes identified with GEDmatch". That takes care of the BLP problem if it's enforced, which should be the case for all articles. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The page on John Everett-Heath, who is presumably still living, does not give the place and date of birth (or only the year). I'm looking for those data, but can someone else try to find them? Thank you, -- Gab.pr ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Kia LaBeija ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi - the listing for Professor Brian Cox is inaccurate. It lists Cox as a professor of particle physics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester. He is actually listed as Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science on the Departments website.
https://www.physics.manchester.ac.uk/about/people/academic-and-research-staff/
I have tried to amend it a couple of times, but have never done this before and it doesn't appear to have worked. Cox's title is an important distinction as he is relatively little published academically as a particle physicist.
I would love someone to help correct this error.
Thanks, Piers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:A32E:5E01:240B:9A82:E850:AE4D ( talk) 06:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
In the Owen Benjamin article, the Joe Rogan podcast is implied to be a far-right podcast where Benjamin stated alt-right views. If one watches the episode, it is instead a confrontation by Rogan to convince him to stop with far-right Twitter rants. [1] This article heavily implies that it was instead a place where he espoused such views, and I think the language used is loaded. I would agree that the views are indeed alt-right and may be classified as such, but I think the implications of the article are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18e:c501:dad0:e4d0:c14e:d0e1:d1d8 ( talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no commentary on the views of the Daily Wire, Joe Rogan or Steven Crowder or Vox Day, nor on what Owen Benjamin did on them. There is only mention that PragerU is conservative and InfoWars and is far right. P.S. I should clarify I only checked that Joe Rogan wasn't mentioned elsewhere. I do not know if the views or what Owen Benjamin did on those other shows is elaborated elsewhere in our article on . Nil Einne ( talk) 10:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Beginning in 2018, Benjamin appeared in several videos for conservative media company PragerU.[12][10][13] He also was a guest on several shows by The Daily Wire, and podcasts including those of Joe Rogan and Steven Crowder.[14][10] In September 2018, he appeared on the far-right InfoWars show, and in December was a guest on a show by Vox Day.[10]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LaMarr Hoyt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Earlier today (morning of November 30), Dan Evans, who worked for the Chicago White Sox during the 1980s, tweeted out condolences on the death of LaMarr Hoyt. He doesn't have a blue checkmark, but that probably is him. Lots of people have tweeted out condolences, including national baseball reporters with blue checkmarks, but the sourcing is weak. This article is the closest I see to confirmation, saying that Hoyt has "reportedly" died.
I've already semi-protected the article on BLP grounds. But, what gives? Don't you think that the Chicago Tribune would've written an obituary on a former Cy Young Award winner by now? The story hasn't been denied by anyone to this point, but of course that's not proof of anything. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
User Wordie ( /info/en/?search=User:Wordie) is making malicious and libelous changes to Margot Black's page as part of a multi-platform continuing campaign to discredit and harass. This has resulted in employment implications and must stop.
Link to diff: [ [20]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.96.2 ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Matthew Kaminski (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) His age does not properly verified from this source [21] that would violate this policy on WP:BLPPRIVACY for birth dates. Also, the misuse of WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPPRIMARY as well. -- 49.150.96.127 ( talk) 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Date of birth : 8 April 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek1204 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Elias Davidsson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The entry contains the defamatory claim that I, Elias Davidsson, am a "conspiracy theorist". This claim should be removed. I am a scholar and respectable author and have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Please acknowledge the removal of this defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F1:2F28:B086:50F7:1B16:3C64:3C5A ( talk) 21:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There have been a flurry of POV edits by new editors at the article in recent weeks. I'm tempted to just cut it back to where it stood before the disruption (i.e. this version). Whatever the outcome, the lead is completely inappropriate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Should a quote from an op-ed piece in a deprecated source (RT) be used in this article about Frank Furedi? Seems to fail on both WP:RS and notability grounds. Another set of eyes would be appreciated. - Amigao ( talk) 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
He also did a track with The Palmer Squares - I'm dope from their Album Planet of the Shapes whom are not among Watsky's associated acts on his wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.209.245 ( talk) 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Mrtarkin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I wanted to draw the attention of editors here to User:Mrtarkin, whose edits are almost exclusively to BLP articles (particularly those relevant to US politics and media of the last 30 years). In my view, a great many of their edits have as sole purpose to bring emphasis to negative aspects of the subject's history, regardless of encyclopedic merit. Many (but not all) of the user's edits have been reverted, and there have been several messages left on their talk-page, but they haven't engaged in discussion. I am bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard in the hopes that people will check that my impression of their edits is accurate and, if so, for consideration of appropriate next steps. -- JBL ( talk) 16:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Ian Urbina Majority of sources in article are duplicate references to the website of the person in question, or articles written by the person in question. Other sources don't show or reflect the information implicated by the citation mark. Causing into question Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV, V, and NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:3918:A200:D806:E266:9C0C:7244 ( talk) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
David Miller (sociologist) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
There are a number of contentious discussions on the talk page of the above article, which would benefit from un-involved eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
BLPs should only have top notch sources, especially for controversial content (and controversial BLPs). If it's not academic or top-rated news, it's out. No MEMO, no EI, and no advocacy orgs or think tanks at all. If the thing you want to source is only available through of one these substandard sources, then it just doesn't get covered in a Wikipedia BLP. This question shouldn't even need to be asked, as global consensus is well established and it's a DS area several times over. Levivich 13:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Isn't a QCs legal report commissioned by the University of Bristol as reliable as you can get? Unfortunately, this also makes it original, and there are only two secondary sources: the EI and Jewish Voice for Labour which have published it. I doubt if the BBC, Guardian or any of the MSM will publish because its findings may clash with their editorial stance on this subject. However, I'm aware of a FOI request for the QCs report to be officially released, but once again it might only get distributed in the alternative media.-- Andromedean ( talk) 14:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Another of Miller's websites, Neocon Europe, hosted material written by Kevin MacDonald, an American evolutionary psychologist who appeared as a witness for David Irving in his unsuccessful libel claim against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt. Miller said he removed MacDonald's statements in November 2009, "as soon as I became aware that they had been posted on the site". In December 2009, Miller said: "Macdonald has been repeatedly and rightly (in our view) accused of racism. Moreover, the statements expressed core essentialist anti-semitic/racist ideas. This material should not have been posted and is in no way endorsed by this site. I apologise for, and deeply regret, this error."is incredibly poorly sourced, to two blogs and an opinion piece. That whole paragraph should be dropped. Really, the article needs going over and sources need to be audited. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Dave Rich has now written (rather than tweeted) about the leaked report but has unfortunately decided to do it in the JC. So there is now an expert opinion in a "reliable"source talking about the report. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Another editor persistently inserts birth date for Justin Chart as 1959/1960. I spoke with Justin Chart he informed me that his date of birth is 1960. What do we need to provide to stop this? Mr. Chart knows when he was born.
Also, another editor removed discography from the page. Every item in the discography was linked to Spotify, where the items are clearly available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akooseo ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Could editors have a look at
Paul Krugman and
Joseph Stiglitz, the BLPs of two Nobel Laureate economists, where isolated 2019 media mentions of their favorable comments about the
Green New Deal have been added, reverted as UNDUE and then readded to their biographies?
The Green New Deal initiative failed to gain traction at the time of its introduction by a faction of the Democratic party, which is currently pursuing other environmental policy initiatives that do not use that name or all of the associated program. These BLP mentions appear to tag these two economists with undefined left-leaning agendas or biases related to the Green New Deal, which is currently used by right-wing media as pejorative tag on left-leaning public figures. The now-readded content received no support on the article talk page but was reinserted in the articles.There is no valid sourcing for article text that states they currently support the Green New Deal.
SPECIFICO
talk 18:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Neither of these economists is particularly noted for work on environmental issues, and if they have written on the subject a more detailed or specific description of their work would be more appropriate. These mentions appear to be an effort to tag them as far-left ideologues whose more significant work should be deprecated.
SPECIFICO
talk 22:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article talk page could do with some input - the article is largely an autobiography (or written by someone with an admitted very close relationship to the subject) - they now wish to remove the tag which highlights this. ℕ ℱ 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The Matrix Resurrections ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As the release date of this movie approaches, this article is seeing an escalation in edits that deliberately misgender the Wachowskis. I am posting here in the hopes of avoiding semi-protection, as many IPs are making constructive edits and there will certainly be new information pouring into the article in the coming days/weeks, and also because I have been claiming the BLP 3RR exemption to revert misgendering edits. Firefangledfeathers 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to add information to this filmmaker's page for a school project, but her filmography isn't showing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alprtor ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a new, well-sourced, but very negative biography of a living person, and should be checked further. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Person is most notable for recent scandal and not much else is written about him. I only know of Denyer because of the scandal. I am hoping other people can expand that article over time. ParallaxVision222 ( talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Eric Zemmour is a candidate for the French presidency. He is a journalist and media pundit, and some of his comments over the years have resulted in criminal charges and arrest or trial in half a dozen cases for defamation, incitement, and various other charges, almost all resulting in acquittal. A discussion is taking place about whether words like defamation or incitement may be used in a subsection header to identify a case where he was charged with that crime, and subsequently found innocent. Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Éric Zemmour#Wording of section headers, for charges he was acquitted of. Thank you. Mathglot ( talk) 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am escalating this here because it is a matter of gender identification, which creates a critical issue regarding the subject of the article.
The Denyer article had been stable based on multiple sources stating Denyer identifies as female. A single podcast, released in 2021, is being used by an editor to support the claim that Denyer no longer identifies as female. Edits have included pronoun changes and changes of first name back to a masculine form. I'm looking for guidance from the community on how to proceed here:
Assistance from the broader community is appreciated, since the article either needs restored or needs an expedited move to the new (old) name. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Greg Austin (American football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article as repeated references in it to someone named "David" that do not match the biography of the subject of this article. The links do not match the citations to which they are appended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.231.153 ( talk) 18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the Brian Kemp article over whether the body of the article should include attributed statements from Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy by Rick L. Hasen (Yale University Press, 2020):
These two sentences were lodged in a section of Kemp's article on accusations that Kemp engaged in voter suppression in Georgia's gubernatorial election, as well as jeopardized the security of the election by among other things exposing the personal voter data of millions. It's been removed by another editor on the basis that the text above is a BLP violation. For what it's worth, the book is peer-reviewed, the author is a law professor who is known for his expertise in election law, and the book covers Georgia's gubernatorial election at great length in the book (the statements are not just off-hand remarks) alongside other problematic elections (overseen by both Democrats and Republicans). I do not see why this is a BLP violation. It's an attributed statement from one of the highest-quality sources (a peer-reviewed monograph authored by a recognized expert in a top tier press). It's the kind of content that Wikipedia articles should have more of. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This article has been plagued by problems for a long time, including COI editing; I just reverted one of those edits. Like so many BLPs, the article is problematic precisely because it is poor quality, somewhat odd considering that, well, it's football. I would like to ask one of you sports editors to take this article and source it, improve it, etc., if only to establish a kind of baseline that we can revert to if further disruption takes place. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
While obviously a criminal convicted of various offences including a single count of manslaughter, significant BLPCRIME issues, in particular calling him a serial killer and his guilt of a murder he has not been charged with. 2A00:23C6:883:8F00:144F:B3ED:81DA:8B6F ( talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Nicole Simone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An article for Nicole Simone was created back in 2020 via AfC by a JustACodeMonkey who has clearly stated their COI as a friend of Simone's, see archived diffs of their talkpage. There appears to be an off-wiki dispute regarding animal cruelty allegations at a rescue charity, "Redemption Paws", that Simone runs, which have been discussed on a self-published blog https://redemptionflaws.wordpress.com/. Anonymous users are engaging in edit warring to try to add these allegations to the article cited to this blog. A brand new user NoSpamming, has created a COIN post as well as a malformed AfD request. Can people keep an eye on the situation? Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have no idea why this website continues to be brought up. I did not mention it and it's existence is of no relevance to the discussion of JustACodeMonkey's conflict of interest. In an interest in preserving the credibility of Wikipedia I think this conflict of interest, and what seems like obvious promotion as the reason this article has been created is something that needs to be addressed. I will be emailing more concrete evidence as to prove the conflict of interest to the appropriate address in order to preserve the privacy of JustACodeMonkey.
I do not appreciate your attack on my post as "malformed", I joined Wikipedia to address this conflict of interest concern which I believe is very valid, but this is the first time I have used this process. If you could refrain from attacks or judgement in this discussion I would appreciate it. I have stuck to the facts here and so should you. NoSpamming ( talk) 01:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your language I suppose. I tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page about this but JustACodeMonkey refused to engage, assumed I had something to do with the website in question (I don not), attacked me and he repeatedly deleted the discussion. This is what led me to Propose it for deletion and flag it for conflict of interest. I'm not sure I understand why this was approved in the first place if his conflict of interest was obviously stated then. If he has received payment from Nicole for his web services, even if he wasn't paid directly to create this article it really doesn't look good. I know for a fact that JustACodeMonkey also is responsible for creating her IMDB page. Why have rules against COI if it's actually just allowed?
I have a personal connection to Nicole which I would rather not disclose, I have no personal ill will against her but I have concerns about her suppression of criticism and using her marketing background (through Greg) to take advantage of Wikipedia for promotion. It just doesn't reflect reality of the notability of redemption paws vs the notability of Nicole and her self funded music and acting exploits. As I said on the talk page I think it would be much more appropriate to just have an article about Redemption Paws, although one not written by an associate of Nicole. NoSpamming ( talk) 01:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Bipin Rawat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Question Can these sources presented on the talk page be used for this BLP content about General Bipin Rawat's caste? [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]
Details: (summary of discussion at
Talk:Bipin_Rawat#Rawat's_caste)
General Bipin Rawat (RIP) recently died. Couple of users are adding controversial caste information, even though Rawat has (to my knowledge) not self identified his caste.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion
are applicable here. These two links above explain the higher bar needed for such information. These bars are not met.
Castes are part of
Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
Some one added caste information. After his death some tabloid sources picked them up from Wikipedia. See
WP:CIRCULAR.
Arunib had
removed this caste info, RS6784 had restored this into article without generating a consensus about sourcing. Among the 2
WP:TOI links in this diff
Special:Diff/1059406602, the first one from 2016 does not even mention the caste information. The second
WP:TOI link appears to be a mirror. Jagran and
WP:TOI are not reliable sources. Ideally Military history books or the subject's biography should be referred. On top of all these points, these unreliable sources are presenting conflicting information. TimesofIndia (A wiki mirror in this case) says Garhwali Rajput. India.com says "Rawat Rajput". Bharattimes says "Chauhan Rajput". It is obvious that these unreliable sources are making speculations about rawat's caste .Rawat has not self identified with the Rajputs. Like many Indians, he might be against Caste system. Till a reliable source becomes available nothing should should be added. Until then Wikipedia should not take sides into this caste dispute among these newspapers.
The article is currently on the mainpage and such dubious information cannot be put into the article.
Venkat TL (
talk) 14:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Some 'religious warriors' are indiscriminately adding names to lists like List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity and List of converts to Hinduism from Islam without even verifying the sources or self-admission as required by WP:BLPCAT. I have tried to fix a few in the past but always found it reverted without any valid explanations or consensus. -- Bringtar ( talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
There is an endless edit war going on over at Virginia Halas McCaskey with no admin intervention. Additionally, this page continues to receive vandalism on an almost weekly basis. Can someone please step in? -- Jkaharper ( talk) 05:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Jason Binn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello I tried making a BOLD edit by removing the following lines on Binn's page but it got replaced by User:Hipal
Binn's ex-girlfriend Amy Dorris says that they attended the U.S. Open in 1997 with
Donald Trump, who Binn had described as his best friend. At the event she alleges that
Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.
[1]
I believe the entire lines shouldn't be on that page. I strongly believe the entire content ought to be removed. It makes no sense. This is biography of a Living person.
I stand to be corrected. Pls take a look. Thanks Ilsecondoordine ( talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Just noted what appears to be black & white, hand-drawn digital caricatures that have been added to the infoboxes of several BLPs. For example, see,
I don't recall seeing these types of images used like this before. I'm not particularly familiar with image policy, so I'm just seeking feedback. Any editors that are versed in image use, and of course BLPs, if they could take a look at these articles and post some insight, it would be appreciated. They're all from the same account on Commons. I posted an ANI there similar to this one, and of course notified them of the ANI there. They don't appear to have an account here (on en.wiki), but I will add a note of this report to the Commons ANI report. Thanks - wolf 07:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I came across this article and already made some minor changes for the purpose of impartial tone(WP:IMPARTIAL). Since he is a quite well-known opinion-based critic about China in Youtube, I have the impression that this article might be too one-sided. That's why I am asking more people to review these pieces. The problem I have spotted is that biography relied heavily on interviews, which might not be reliable. And those media outlets who cited him mostly are from the countries that might have conflict of interest with China (VOA and some Taiwanese news etcs). Also, the section "Career after leaving China" needs more references.
Either way, I am neutral and probably wont take part in editing this article anytime soon. Someone97816 ( talk) 00:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
A Paris based IP user is edit warring to change the birthdate of Christian Rosa. Their Artnet profile says they were born in September 12, 1982 [66]. While their FBI indictment says they were 43 as of October 2021 [67], putting their birthdate as c. 1978. The IP is edit warring to solely include the 1978 date. Given that the sources conflict, shouldn't both be included? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this a good enought source for BLP purposes? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)To explain, Rosa used the birth year of 82 ', which is why it was mentioned in numerous reports until recently (only last week in profile, for example). In fact, it is wrong. Whatever the reason why he made himself younger: 78' is his actual birth year ...
Rob Monster is going to be a hard article to get right, as people understandably have strong feelings about Mr Monster. It's not a good article for a BLP I would say, so I started vetting the refs. The first I vetted was a Huffpost article, since it was used 19 times. I noted that:
That's the first ref vetted, and of course I took it out and all fraught material solely ref'd by that (while explaining on the talk page), as BLP requires prompt action ( dif). But there's been some opposition there, and my edit was rolled back, and the article's under discretionary sanctions, which I think means 1RR, so I've fouled out. There are other refs to be vetted so let's get to work. Advice, comments, etc.? Herostratus ( talk) 14:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
While we're here, can someone weigh in on Herostratus' opinion ( [69], [70]) that we should remove citations to the Huffington Post article that are supporting non-contentious statements (date of birth, etc.), and either leave them uncited or with {{ citation needed}} templates, because the title of the article shouldn't appear in the references? I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that instructs us not to use references that would otherwise be usable for non-contentious statements of fact because the title is objectionable to one editor, or that leaving the content in place and uncited is somehow preferable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Dave Scotti now known as Davy Garlo. See Screen Actors Guild, YouTube, Webpage, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoJinx ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
In August, an anonymous editor added information sourced from what appears to be a fake news website naming the romantic partner of Prince. I am concerned this is a violation of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE in the case of the supposed romantic partner; thus I recommend that revisions between the addition of the info and the removal be revdel'd. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 07:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This is newly created. While the person has coverage, I am concerned that the article is maybe presenting a very negative spin and is almost only on Rutherford County, Tennessee, juvenile jail controversy. I do not know enough about this myself to fix it. Pikavoom ( talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
1)Profile picture is not there. Full birth date is not written(24th april , 2000).
2)My new regional films have not been added:
1)Munna Bhai (with Pradeep Pandey Chintu) 2) Didiya Ke Dewar Dil Le Gail
3)Incomplete information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.239.119 ( talk) 07:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm writing here instead of editing the article, which I really want to do.
Matt Sanchez died on September 11, 2018.
I remained in touch with him after my Wikimedia days and had a few conversations over the years. I met him in person one time when I was visiting Southern California. As controversial a character that he was, he was an incredibly likeable individual.
His sister and I knew of each other because we were both in Berkeley and associated with theological schools. She got in touch with me after Matt died and invited me to the celebration of life, held in San Jose the following month, which I was sadly unable to attend.
I don't know what to do in an instance like this. There was no obituary or notice in the news when Matt died. He was mostly off the grid in his last couple years. When I met him in person he was driving for Uber and wasn't exactly living at the top of his game.
Nobody covered his death, not the porn media, not Fox News, not anyone who he was previously associated with. So I have no sources I can add. Just my personal attestation that he is, in fact, dead.
I don't know if we have any precedents for this sort of situation but if someone may guide me, please help
Bastique ☎ call me! 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Many weeks has passed since Draft:Soheil Beiraghi's article has created, but no one reviewed it yet. Could one of the admins do me a favor and take a look at it? Thank you. Kabootaremesi ( talk) 09:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
77.96.159.195 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
An anonymous user has been repeatedly restoring (most recent diff linked) a "controversy" section consisting solely of a mention of drug use by the subject, as cited to dubious sources. I and at least two other users have been reverting this editor on the grounds of WP:BLPREMOVE. -- Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Birth records prove she was born in 1943:
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=4431959
Name: Carly Simon
Birth Date: 25 Jun 1943
Birth Place: Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA
Certificate Number: 21212
She claims 1945, but IMDb and Goodreads list her true age:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800089/
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/173740.Carly_Simon
Those are not dispositive, but the birth record is.
Her sisters Joanna Simon (October 20, 1936) and Lucy Simon (May 5, 1940) are also older than their Wiki pages say:
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3992145
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3832907
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2048095/
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800254/
WhatsTheTruth00 ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
See the 1979 Opticon yearbook for Haddam-Killingworth High School in Higganum, Connecticut; she is pictured on page 105 as a graduating senior:
https://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Haddam-Killingworth-High-School/82172?page=105
Several online sources list her true year of birth:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001152
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/10803955.Illeana_Douglas
https://www.peliplat.com/en/library/celeb/pc12638550
https://www.cinemaclock.com/stars/illeana-douglas
http://douglashistory.co.uk/history/illeanadouglas.htm
https://www.myagecalculator.org/famous-birthdays/actress/how-old-is-illeana-douglas/
WhatsTheTruth00 ( talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Many sources (mostly tabloids and unreliable blogs) have talked about the supposed real name and birth date of Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter) (not sharing here per BLP, but it can be easily Googled if you wish to know). The only sources that might be OK that reported this are The Tab, Manchester Evening News, and HITC, but I'm still wary of adding it unless Francis says so himself or a more reliable source comes out with it. There's also a few, also mostly unreliable, sources reporting that he is or was a music producer. There's been a lot of IP addresses attempting to add the real name/birthdate to the article, so this is why I'm asking. Thoughts? wizzito | say hello! 12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Michael Shermer ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors (with COI?) may be blocking references to controversy
I was researching this person having heard of his work for the first time today and, after reading the (very detailed and somewhat promotional) Wikipedia article, discovered elsewhere that he is the subject of fairly widely reported (especially given his relative obscurity) allegations about misogyny and worse, and that these controversies have spilled over into, for example, protests at some of his speaking engagements. There is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, but on the talk page there are clear attempts by some editors to make mention of them, with lengthy and fairly aggressive rebuttals by others. The argument against including them in this article appears to be based on the claim that BLPs cannot mention Me Too allegations, and pejorative-heavy claims that the sources, which include a lengthy and apparently well documented Buzzfeed article, are not reliable. I was unable to find out what the BLP policy is regarding "Me Too" allegations, but the arguments on the talk page seem (a) specious—other BLPs on Wikipedia mention similar allegations— and (b) are so defensive and argumentative that the editors making them appear to have a COI or relationship with the subject. While Wikipedia articles cannot and should not try to adjudicate such claims, the total absence of them in the article seems like subject-serving omission, rather than good encylopedic practice, and did me a disservice when researching the subject. I would be grateful if someone who is expert in Wikipedia BLPs could take a look at this article and decide whether any edits are justified.
PS The article also seems to be bloated with far more detail than is merited by the subject's notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.114.79 ( talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
There is a RfC about the level of detail of the 2015 allegations against James Deen that is appropriate for his article given BLP considerations. [2] The history of this dispute can be seen at [3]. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Was I being too overzealous here with my application/enforcement of BLP? A week ago, I reverted some category additions from the previous few days which had made assertions unverified in the body of the article. At the time, I believed the additions to be BLP violations, but now I'm not so sure — the subject is an avowed member of the KKK, and therefore the added categories could conceivably apply to the subject; a couple of them could've been suggested by a quote from the subject in the article. However, I felt uncomfortable with most of the new categories remaining in the article because they were not directly referenced to any sources. Admittedly, I neither checked the sources already present, nor looked for any new sources myself. At the time, I felt that — and please correct me if I'm wrong — my not doing so did not matter because none of the sources had been used to reference the specific claims in question, one major example being the alleged ANP membership; the article made no mention of the ANP. Also, maybe I'm being arrogant, but frankly there are many things I would rather do, on Wikipedia and in general, than work on an article about a white supremacist. I meant to write this post several days ago but have been very busy IRL. Thank you for any constructive feedback, Dylan620 ( talk) 23:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I am the communications director for Jason Miyares, Attorney General -elect of Virignia. I have his official headshot, which is used on our social media, and would like it to be his Wikipedia picture, but users keep changing it. Can I please give you this headshot, which matches his twitter and facebook, and then have it locked?
Aseem Malhotra ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Greetings. I have some serious concerns about the article at hand. Dr. Malhotra's page has recently been expanded significantly by a Viv Hamilton ( talk · contribs), who has returned to Wikipedia after about a ten years' hiatus, and now evidently has a chip on their shoulder wrt. to Dr. Malhotra. I don't maintain privately a strong position on Dr. Malhotra, but I do believe that our biography ought to be neutral and dispassionate. It now almost reads as a RationalWiki entry, replete with invective and ridicule. Take for instance the detailed descriptions of his parents, and how their dietary considerations may or may not have impacted their longevity:
Malhotra was born in New Delhi in India in October 1977, the younger son of two doctors: Kailash Chand and Anisha Malhotra. The family moved to Britain in 1978 when his father had a clinical attachment at Alder Hey Hospital and was studying for a Diploma in Tropical Medicine at Liverpool University Both parents became General Practitioners in Ashton-under-Lyme, Greater Manchester. In 1988, Malhotra's brother Amit, who was two year's older than Malhotra, and had been born with Down's Syndrome died of heart failure aged thirteen. This inspired Malhotra with the ambition to become a cardiologist. Malhotra was educated at Manchester Grammar School. Malhotra's father went on to become the first Asian to be elected as honorary vice-president and deputy chair of the council of the British Medical Association and received an O.B.E for long-standing service to the NHS. Malhotra has said that he had a unique relationship with his father, who was his best friend and the most loving and amazing father. Malhotra's mother's religious faith was important to her and Malhotra observed that she fasted weekly by only consuming one meal on a fast day. She died in 2018 aged 68 after several years of illness when she was cared for by her husband. Three months later, Malhotra who blamed her obesity, years of illness and premature death on her vegetarian diet that he said was high in sugar and ultra-processed foods and low in protein said "I very much hope that her premature and painful death was not in vain and we can learn that much of these ills are preventable." Malhotra's father died suddenly in 2021 after suffering a cardiac arrest.
As you can see, this paragraph is barely grammatical, and indicative of the entire article's many problems. I suggest that the entire article be rewritten, observing English grammatical norms and our BLP policy. Note that the page has been increased from roughly 16k bytes to 40k in a couple months. I seriously doubt that Viv Hamilton is the correct custodian for this particular biography. Thank you. Nutez ( talk) 07:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Róbert Wessman ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
While I was working on the IRC helpdesk a user reported this, claiming it was defamatory: The article implies that the CEO of an pharmaceutical company may have been guilty of criminal acts. According to the sources he may have been cleared of these crimes. I have not had time to fully review this article. I advised the user to make an edit request, but in the meantime it may help if expert eyes can review the current state of the article. Salimfadhley ( talk) 15:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Can some people please have look at the edit war + edit summaries at Anuna De Wever, and to a lesser degree at Christine Lagarde. In both cases, it is about sourced but WP:UNDUE negative issues (for De Wever a stupid tweet for which she received some backlash, for Lagarde a conviction for negligence for which she didn't even receive a penalty) and how and where in the article to report them. Fram ( talk) 10:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Defamatory statements are included: "Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of a sexual assault allegation in the Church laid against another bishop..." (para 2; footnotes 3 and 4). No such allegation is against the bishop in the court where the trial of the case is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomytomthomas ( talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Joseph Kallarangatt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Defamatory statements are made against Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt. Vandalism is felt: "During the police investigation, he was brought in for questioning and stated that the nun had only made a verbal complaint with him and not a written one" (footnote 19). The bishop, who belongs to Palai diocese of the Syro Malabar Church, is not the proper authority of the nun who works in the Latin Diocese of Jalandar, Punjab. Again the bishop has stated that the nun hasn't referred anything to rape or sexual harassment she faced from bishop Franco mulackal. The trial of the case is going on. And the name of Bishop Kallarangatt is not at all in the charge sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunmathewleo ( talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
He is not charged with covering up. The source article from the Hindu does not make any mention of such an allegation. As part of the investigation, he was asked to testify as a witness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.74.184 ( talk) 08:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Can someone explain the BLP policy on "contentious" unsourced material to me? I haven't found any definition of what "contentious" means in a WP context. Disagreements between editors? Between public figures? Something else?
This question is prompted by the article linked in this section header, which has no inline citations whatsoever (all footnotes are to the list items from "awards" and below). My understanding was that the general policy is "when in doubt, remove it", but pretty extensive copy edits have been done on this and no citations added or talk page remarks to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilvering ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the neutrality of the biography about Sarah-Lee Heinrich that led to full-protection of the page and a discussion at ANI ( permanent link). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 11:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
More eyes would be appreciated at Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, where a few IPs have been pushing some negatively-slanted original synthesis about what how the subject's h-index compares to others in physics based on the distributions reported in an unrelated arXiv paper for a few months now. (The sources cited in past edits include a link to a video by YouTube commentator Gad Saad where he expresses dislike of CPW, so I presume that's what's driving people.) There seem to me to be obvious BLP concerns w/ using poorly-sourced cite stats without any actual coverage in secondary RS anyway; we certainly don't do this for comparable bios like Katie Mack (astrophysicist) or Neil deGrasse Tyson and it can be confusing to interpret for different subfields of physics/differing career lengths, between databases etc. so it's not clear it adds anything but confusion. — 0xf8e8 💿 ( talk) 20:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Corey Benjamin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Corey Benjamin, a retired basketball player, has been in the news lately since a video of his daughter became viral. Multiple ip addresses have inserted the incident and his alleged history of domestic violence into his biography afterwards. I have removed the incident with his daughter under WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME and also the domestic violence allegations due to poor sourcing. [4] Even though the page is now semi-protected, please keep an eye on the article. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 21:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I do not see the "move" button as an anonymous user. Please help to edit this page [ Tesfaye|here]. The page title should be Danial Fesshaye - NOT Daniel Tesfaye. The URL should also reflect the new name. This page is semi-protected but I have a picture of the official IOC Card with the correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyimam ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Defamatory statement and Vandalism are evident in the second paragraph of the article: "Kallarangatt has been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government"
1. The footnotes 3,4 and 5 speaks of another bishop 2. Footnote 3 is a tabloid article from The News Minute refers to sexual allegation against another bishop (Bishop Franco) and also claims that Church tries to hide illegal wealth through political coalition. Both these observations are used indiscriminately against Joseph Kallarangatt. 3. Footnote 4 from The Telegraph Online is all about declining population of Christians in Kerala and its electoral impact 4. Footnote 5 has nothing to say about sexual assault and corruption. 5. In short, the tabloid, one sided articles are used to create a gossip trio: "sexual assault-corruption allegation-Hindutva movement" in the very opening of the article. 6. In fact, the themes love jihad and narco jihad are added in the article at the right place as the article proceeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straightwrite ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear administrators and editors, I have found the following articles under the category of Sinhalese military personnel which are a content considerable amount of unsourced content or poorly sourced content. Pls, help to improve these articles or remove the unsourced information of biographies of living persons. Also, I feel that some of the articles are on low-profile individuals. I highly appreciate your guidance and suggestion as a new member.
2407:C00:D002:D468:24F1:5711:35B9:751F ( talk) 15:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Remove the reference that Joseph Kallarangatt is involved in the covering up of sexual allegation. The links to the charge sheet against bishop Franco is here: https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2020/08/13/charge-sheet-nun-rape-case-bishop-franco-mulakkal.html and https://theprint.in/india/police-file-chargesheet-against-bishop-franco-mulakkal-in-kerala-nun-rape-case/219243/ Remove all the erroneous claims in the article that connects joseph Kallarangatt with Bishop Franco mulakkal caseEzhuth (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Ezhuth ( talk) 09:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This article appears to be largely edited by one user who has edited only this page. It appears to be a self-promotion, especially the "personal" section that contains a lengthy "defense" against criminal charges.
Some examples:
"By all measures, the I/UCRC center led by Lee was a tremendous success in terms of its technical progress, educational value, and societal impact. with numerous projects garnered practice excellence awards."
"The NSF Office of Inspector General disagreed with the counting of membership. They considered only cash flow into Georgia Tech as membership fee."
"On September 18, 2019 the National Science Foundation General Council issued a final Notice of Administrative Action regarding the NSF Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation, Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney's office refused to drop charges."
"During sentencing, hospital and academic leaders described Lee as a truly gifted and selfless individual with extraordinary talents, exceptional heart, and full of love for others, who works tirelessly for the community and for the world; an individual who is committed to serving the minorities and the disadvantaged."
"The case is unusual in multiple aspects: The non-compliance of NSF Office of Inspector General investigators; the refusal of U.S. Attorney to dismiss the charges; the repeated denial of Georgia Tech administrators to requests from top U.S. health officials to restore Lee's access to her computers while COVID-19 rages across the country."
The rest of the article also reads like a self-promotion and/or CV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3ec0:1650:d05e:65c:f8c9:66b3 ( talk) 00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I note the vandalism and BLP violation within the last hour here on the Leslie Phillips page. The IP address 96.18.6.194 is not here to build an encyclopedia. Every single edit of theirs going as far back as 12 months ago is petty vandalism, so no use trying to reason with said IP. Can an administrator please block? Thanks -- Jkaharper ( talk) 21:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Parakrama Pannipitiya ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.
Brent Coon ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The VRT team have been asked to bring this article for community discussion to see if the article complies with BLP and other community policies. The concerns / claims raised in the request include the following:
If there's a more appropriate venue for this discussion, please feel free to move the thread accordingly. ‑‑ ElHef ( Meep?) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
This page about Harry Hill contains a mess of potentially libellous, weasel-worded material, Some of it is sourced, but not always at the appropriate place. Needs an independent editor's eye. Vizjim ( talk) 16:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The contradictions in the BLP "Joseph Kallarangatt". The article in the second paragraph claims about sexual assault and corruption allegation based on footnotes 7,8 and 9. The corruption allegation is based on the article "The right turn by a section of Kerala’s Catholic church is sheer opportunism". A single statement is made by Indulekha Joseph that "There are many allegations the church faces currently, including corruption and sexual offences”. How does this single quote be included in the BLP of Joseph Kallarangatt against him? There is no mention that there is corruption allegation against Joseph Kallarangatt, Please refer the footnote no. 7 https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/right-turn-section-kerala-s-catholic-church-sheer-opportunism-155406
About sexual assault the contradiction is as follows: the term sexual assault is used in paragraph 2 of the article gives the impression that Joseph Kallarangatt has done the assault. Again the matter is referred under the title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church". Here it is claimed that Joseph Kallarangatt has approached by the nun based on footnote 13 https://caravanmagazine.in/gender-sexuality/bishop-franco-mulakkal-kerala-nun-rape-case-protests But the very footnote 14 which is from The Hindu, a leading newspaper in India, takes a different report. It claims that bishop said that the nun had made verbal reference about the complaint, not any written complaint. It never says that the bishop delayed anything or covered up anything. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/nun-complained-to-me-pala-bishop/article24422306.ece
The title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church" itself is inappropriate in the write-up about Joseph Kallarangatt since he has nothing to do with the controversies itself that it should be in his BLP. The first paragraph under this title talks about Franco Mulakkal, a bishop of the Latin rite, India. The BLP of a person should contain events that require direct involvement of the person. There is purposeful attempt to defame the person. Sheer vandalism is detected. Whenever a positive information is added just by adding a name about his alma mater, it is deleted instantly. What about the right of good name of a person in Wikipedia when the concerned person may not be a privileged editor. Ezhuth ( talk) 10:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
While researching conflict of interest concerns involving
Lightburst I discovered that they had created a biography of lawyer
John Travena. COI concerns aside, it appears that the article may have been created only to attack Trevena's ex-wife in relation to a domestic violence incident. Right from the start, the "personal life" section
contained claims that the ex-wife was a user of "methamphetamine and heroin and other illicit drugs". Trevena was arrested for domestic battery in March 2019. The articles was created in May 2019 and Light burst continued to edit the personal life section to add even more detail to accusations against the ex-wife (for example,
these additions in December 2019). I have
removed the section entirely since it did not provide any information outside of that dispute. Trevena's wife is not a high-profile individual and the allegations are just allegations, so I believe this is a violation of WP:BLP. I would appreciate it if other editors could review my actions. Thank you.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk) 20:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked
:::
Lightburst, saying that the next thread about you will be at ANI is not a threat. It is simply what happens when a user continues to ignore discussions of their actions.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk) 21:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
:::::I think you may have misunderstood what was going on. It appears to me that the intention was not to make Trevena "look bad by association" but to smear his wife and balance out the domestic violence charge.
Please sign my guestbook (
talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked
I've given the personal life section a once over. I removed the super obvious BLPVIO Trevena's wife, Meredith Lynn Recio and the boyfriend of the former Trevena employee broke into the Trevena law firm. They stole a check which they forged and cashed for $8,500 dollars. Trevena told police that they also stole a .44 caliber handgun.
That stated as fact someone had committed a crime based on an allegation. I tried to clear out the names as well. The whole section should probably be removed per
WP:DUE and
WP:BLP, as there are no convictions, no resolutions to lawsuits and, as Zaereth has said, it's tabloid trash.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to add that the AFD for this article shows yet more problems with the Article Rescue Squaderon - the state of the article at nomination [6] shows the BLP problems identified above, but 3 of the major members of ARS jumped to say "keep" even pointing out the domestic violence coverage as a reason to keep, which is not what we cover per BLPCRIME. So the argument "this survived an AFD" has no weight here - we judge BLP issues at the state the article is currently in, as that is a top-level priority for us. -- Masem ( t) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Not at all clear BLPCRIME applies as this is a nationally known "prominent" lawyer who is not magically immune from sources that cover controversies they have been involved in. I've started talk page discussions with additional sources. -- Green C 23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
To no one's surprise, OP has been CU blocked. Levivich 23:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This BLP is completely unsourced except for one reference that I added. The sections about marriage and career contain unsourced defamatory claims about the person as demonstrated in the diffs given here, here and here. -- Netha (talk) 09:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This subject is not notable, by any means. It is a vanity, possibly commissioned, article. This article has been deleted once and nominated for deletion twice. Now certain individuals are undoing edits in both the article and the discussion page. It should be, once again, deleted and, in the meantime, protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaMillbard ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
The following content has been added at Alex Saab:
It is sourced to two twitter posts. I have removed the content twice ( [8] and [9]) but it has been restored. There is a discussion on Alex Saab's talk page about the content at [10]. Disregarding the issue of lack of consensus, there is the issue of using Twitter as a source for claims about third parties. The text makes statements about Saab's defence team and Rev. Ramos Teixeira. Our policy says, among other things, that Twitter "may be used as sources of information about themselves, ... so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties". Burrobert ( talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
References
Whilst patrolling recent changes, I saw that User:Surabhilak has requested in an edit summary ( Special:Diff/1056331089) we suppress details of her marital history (which were referenced to a RS). Normally for a performer trying to massage their information for publicity reasons I would revert, but am concerned that marriage and divorce can be a sensitive topic. Would welcome opinions from those more experienced in the area. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Ashleigh Barty ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Whoever oversees this article repeatedly removes 'Indigenous' from the first line of text, claiming that her heritage is covered (later in the article) in: "She is ranked No. 1 in the world in singles by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and is the second Australian WTA singles No. 1 after fellow Indigenous Australian player Evonne Goolagong Cawley." This line of text is easily misinterpreted in regard to her heritage, where the 'fellow' tennis player could be easily interpreted as simply relating to their careers, or even more easily skipped over entirely in reading. It is Wikipedia's role to provide clear biographical information, and it's incredibly important that Indigenous Australians with a platform are recognised for their heritage. There is absolutely no harm that could come with making Barty's heritage clearer, she is a proud Indigenous woman, and we should not be trying to bury that piece of information in a confusingly worded paragraph. I do not understand why the editor keeps erasing edits which clarify Barty's Indigenous heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.229.112 ( talk) 01:14, 22 Nov 2021 (UTC)
As of now, police have a "person of interest" and there is no suspect. The name or any details about this person have not been released. The talk page has a section naming whom they believe to be the suspect. I believe even naming this person is a violation of BLP given how serious the incident is and that nothing has been confirmed by authorities. It's all internet speculation which might be wrong.
Harizotoh9 ( talk) 10:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Rosenbaum is not a living person and does not fall under BLP. It should be allowed to add the well-sourced information about his previous convictions, which were also brought up in the trial about this case. Rosenbaum was a [redacted], which is relevant to that article because 1. it was relevant in the court and 2. he died while chasing a minor. Source: [1]
2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E ( talk) 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Everyone, please recall that WP:BLP (and WP:BDP) applies to talk pages and noticeboards as well as the articlespace. While it is reasonable to have a discussion about whether this content ought to be included, describing details of alleged crimes without any reliable sources is not. And please note that reliable is a key word here— WP:RSP and WP:RSN are good starting points if you are new to evaluating source reliability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Enough of Rosenbaum's criminal history in reliable sources that's its fair game for the article. I dont see why this is so controversial. DarrellWinkler ( talk) 02:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Rosenbaum's sex offender status is not a rumour, it is a fact backed by reliable sources including CNN. [13] But it was not permitted as evidence, nor were historical videos of Rittenhouse. [14] However, I don't see by what precedent we're not allowed to mention things that weren't evidence in a trial. We have a whole article on a victim of a murder, George Floyd, which covers material unrelated to him being murdered, including historical crimes which had no connection to him being murdered in broad daylight 14 years later. Unknown Temptation ( talk) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It has been claimed that describing Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" in Brookings Institution is a BLP policy violation.
Specifically: In rolling back edits of Brookings Institution in which I described Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" — @SPECIFICO ( reversion) and @Valjean ( reversion) have described this text as a BLP violation.
1) Insofar as I understand BLP policy, the disputed "indicted Steele dossier source" text is not a BLP violation.
2) *If* the disputed text *was* a BLP policy violation then the place to object to "indicted Steele dossier source" would be in the Igor Danchenko article where description of Danchenko's indictment appears.
3) I've attempted to elicit from @Valjean and @SPECIFICO their reasoning for their claims of a BLP policy violation but I have been unsuccessful.
Am I correct that "... indicted Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko ..." appearing in /info/en/?search=Brookings_Institution is not a BLP policy violation?
More discussion of this issue can be seen at /info/en/?search=Talk:Brookings_Institution#Former_Brooking_analyst_Igor_Danchenko_was_indicted_for_lying_to_the_FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
My reasoning has been expressed in these comments:
I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well. It's a gratuitous and unnecessary editorial attack where it's irrelevant. This is not a situation where a known quack is described as a pusher of pseudoscientific nonsense in their bio article and that description is repeated in an article about the pseudoscience they push. Such mention is justified because it is relevant in both places. This is very different as Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article. They are relevant at Igor Danchenko, Steele dossier, Russia investigation origins counter-narrative#Durham inquiry and John Durham#Indictment of Steele dossier source, but not Brookings Institution. Just because something is a fact does not justify using it where it's not relevant. -- Valjean ( talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
First, I'll clarify I should have said our content policies and guidelines.
Anyway as for your question have you read BLP? The very first sentence says: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page.[a] Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
NPOV is one of the 3 core policies listed there. UNDUE weight is a subsection of NPOV. COATTRACK is an essay but it primarily relates to compliance with NPOV and specifically mentions "When a biography of a living person is a coatrack, it is a problem that requires immediate action. Items may be true and sourced, but if a biography of a living person is essentially a coatrack, it needs to be fixed.
" Yes this part isn't as clear cut about the relevance of material about living persons in articles that aren't biographies but ultimately it's an essay relating as I said mostly to compliance with NPOV. And as BLP itself clearly says it applies to any material about living persons anywhere, including on this page BTW.
In some cases it can be helpful to discuss problems about articles in other places, even if they relate to material on living persons e.g. WP:RSN, WP:FTN or yes even WP:NPOVN but there should be no question about the relevance of BLPN and BLP when the concerns relate to what we say about some living person. There is no bright line, it's never okay to violate our content policies and harm a living person just because you're doing it on some other page or in some way which isn't directly addressed in BLP.
If material about a living person can be covered in one page where it's relevant and in context but cannot be in another page because it's irrelevant and out of context then yes this is a BLP violation. You're violating BLP which clearly says we must get articles right in the parts which concern living persons and ensure we comply with NPOV in relation to material on living persons.
This doesn't mean all such violations should be brought up here or even that it's necessary to bring up BLP. Often discussion on the article talk page is sufficient and if it's not sometimes other noticeboards or dispute mechanisms may be appropriate and it's not necessary to bring up BLP. (For example, in some cases it might be fine to simply start a RfC.) However any editor editing something about a living person should always have BLP at the back of their mind and while it's fine to suggest it might be better to resolve some dispute elsewhere, I don't think it should ever be said that concerns about our coverage of a living person are off-topic on BLPN.
A final point which since the concern here is NPOV which is directly address by BLP is largely irrelevant. But since I said it. If any editor wants to dispute whether violation of other policies besides BLP itself, NPOV,
WP:V and
WP:NOR are BLP violations since it doesn't really mention this (discounting the limited mentions e.g. of our external link guideline). Well I'll first point out it says "We must get the article right
". And I'd say getting the article right must include complying with out other policies (and generally our guidelines). It also says "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies.
" so again recognition compliance with our content policies for material about living persons is a must.
Nil Einne ( talk) 08:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Bernard Rhodes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour ( talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that but unfortunately Real Punk Rockers has again reinstated the middle name Gary without any reference point. If this could be dealt with again please because all requests for Real Punk Rocker to provide source material are ignored — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Attention needed at Jameela Jamil, where a lengthy conspiratorial personal life section aims to imply, using extreme synthesis and poor sources such as Instagram users, that Jamil is a serial liar and maybe even has Münchhausen syndrome, when no reliable source makes these claims in their own words. BLP violations have been made on the talk page, even by a user who is actually in favor of (mostly) redacting the section. A BLP-compliant personal life rewrite by me in this diff has been reverted. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
References
help with Author's Mikey Walsh biography section- it states that the Author 'suffers from Poor mental health & social anxiety disorder.', but is false information, & the cited links they are using for that statement are for reviews and interviews in regards to authors books, but not on this statement, which makes it false. the Articles belong on the page, as they are, all based on Authors books, and can be added to any other statement in the biography, but the "mental health" statement, has no cited, or truthful base. There are accounts that change this page in bad faith, from casting false cited opinion to even changing the persons name. is there any way more protection can be done? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.183.168 ( talk) 17:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
(This was auto-archived, not sure why.)
This article appears to be largely edited by one user who has edited only this page. It appears to be a self-promotion, especially the "personal" section that contains a lengthy "defense" against criminal charges.
Some examples:
"By all measures, the I/UCRC center led by Lee was a tremendous success in terms of its technical progress, educational value, and societal impact. with numerous projects garnered practice excellence awards."
"The NSF Office of Inspector General disagreed with the counting of membership. They considered only cash flow into Georgia Tech as membership fee."
"On September 18, 2019 the National Science Foundation General Council issued a final Notice of Administrative Action regarding the NSF Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation, Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney's office refused to drop charges."
"During sentencing, hospital and academic leaders described Lee as a truly gifted and selfless individual with extraordinary talents, exceptional heart, and full of love for others, who works tirelessly for the community and for the world; an individual who is committed to serving the minorities and the disadvantaged."
"The case is unusual in multiple aspects: The non-compliance of NSF Office of Inspector General investigators; the refusal of U.S. Attorney to dismiss the charges; the repeated denial of Georgia Tech administrators to requests from top U.S. health officials to restore Lee's access to her computers while COVID-19 rages across the country."
The rest of the article also reads like a self-promotion and/or CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.88.101 ( talk) 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Contentious material ✅
about living persons ✅
unsourced ✅
must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page ✅
especially if potentially libellous ✅
Here is the diff that restores the libel
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1057268053
67.174.115.222 ( talk) 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
We need to stop classifying murder based on a failed justice system, nor what weak lawsuit-avoiding terminology the press uses. This case exemplifies this again.That's literally saying that they are using the legal term, and the article subject is still a murderer, despite the result of a trial. I think there's some wiggle room if the use followed what you're describing, but that is specifically not what we're dealing with here. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling#RFC on how to include her trans-related views (and backlash) in the lead
I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.
Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpointsuggests BLP issues on the part of the poster, more than anything else. But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of an article that had seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing. Newimpartial ( talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Various IPs from the range 2a01:cb05:8ad0:3d00:, not just the one listed above, have removed Khalid Skah's personal life and family sections several times since 11 October. They have put in their edit summaries, "I would like to keep my private life preserve [ sic]", "Khalid Skah doesnt want his private life in wikipedia", and "stop publishing a bullshit stories [ sic]". — twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 14:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I have reason to believe that this page was created in bad faith by an editor who has not disclosed a Conflict of Interest. In the interest of transparency, I am acting on behalf of Róbert Wessman, the article subject, which is why I have not nominated the page directly.
The article was created and substantially edited by Haeito1010 in August. The first thing that raised suspicion of COI is that this User has only created two articles, possibly making them a single purpose account. They have a rather basic User page too, avoiding revealing too much personal information, but also making significant use of templates.
They used their sandbox in an extremely unusual way, uploading a word at a time:
or a batch of characters at a time:
Their total edit count is 765, 742 of which are to the sandbox. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that this may have been an attempt to inflate the edit count and look artificially more proficient as an editor. It is also plausible to assume the editor was copying and pasting from a draft, given that in example 5 they uploaded a sequence of characters (%C3%ADa/oG49AQAAIAAJ?), which is not naturalistic.
On August 22nd Haeito1010 made an edit changing the content of their sandbox from a draft on the composer Juan María Guelbenzu Fernández to a draft on Wessman. This time they did not upload in small chunks, but as a long form page with an Infobox. This again suggests that the editor had a draft ready to upload: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User%3AHaeito1010%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=1040091856&oldid=1031837718
After this, the draft was moved (again in chunks!) to mainspace, the sandbox was blanked, and Haeito1010 has not used their sandbox since. Indeed, they have not edited at all since 22 August, when they made 12 edits to the article on Róbert Wessman. This suggests to me that all of their activity was designed solely to create this page.
The only other pages they have worked on are Sociedad de Cuartetos and Alvogen, both of which have a connection to the pages this user has created. However, as Fernández died in 1886, it seems more likely that they would be paid to work on Wessman.
The article should be deleted as it imparts little information about Wessman himself that would be classed as encyclopaedic. References 1, 2, 6, and 8 are from primary sources, 7 is clearly biased, and references 12 and 14 are dead. There are also some nebulous statements which need sourcing and don’t have any: “The actual ownership of the company was somewhat unclear for around a decade's time”. This would be poor for an article which falls under WP:BLP in any case, but given the strange behaviour of the account creator, I would suggest that the page be deleted and created from scratch again, if Wessman is considered notable enough.
Noemimanical ( talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I've never edited this article but it came to my attention when I gave someone a DS alert and noticed this (which has been slightly changed since added). "Beschloss has been characterized by some as a " left-wing historian" for bias in favor of the Democratic Party. [1] [2]"
I've explained to the editor that "some" can be a problem and normally should be attributed. The "Elegant News" source is an anonymous story written in broken English on a site with no evident oversite. The Fox site has an author, but is that sufficient? There is also an SPA who has edited it and that of his wife for years, User:Wikillinois - the same state where the subjects live. I'm thinking of blocking that editor from the two articles, allowing them to use the talk page. I don't intend to edit the article myself. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
References
Dear team, I think the photo on the Wiki page for Rachel Parris, British comedian, is not actually her? Having only just joined Wiki, I am unsure how to resolve this, other than informing you.
Many thanks Kenny61ag ( talk) 22:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Stephen Marglin (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
The Career section contains two paragraphs without any citations regarding the subject's most recent book, some of which seems to be a summary of said book, phrased not as a description of the book's contents or its arguments, but as fact. The Personal Life section contains no citations and lists the subject's children and their occupations, including a child who is listed as a recent high school graduate and another as a current college student. From the edit history, it appears that this article was edited several times by a Smarglin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.99.239.36 ( talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Sarath Weerasekara ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): This article is mainly based on unsourced content. Pls, help to improve this article or remove unsourced sourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:ab29:74b5:b961:7cef:dcc1 ( talk • contribs) 08:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Wasantha Karannagoda ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:d468:24f1:5711:35b9:751f ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Roshan Goonetileke ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:d468:24f1:5711:35b9:751f ( talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This list repeatedly uses names of suspects of serious crimes with no indication of conviction. Many of the sources are just republications of press releases and similar low quality sources. There's also a significantly promotional tone to the whole article, but that is a separate issue.
Unfortunately, I'm editing on mobile right now, so I cannot go at the article with a machete. If appreciate if anyone else could take a look at this and see if they agree with my BLP concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I suggest renaming the article to "List of people convicted of crimes identified with GEDmatch". That takes care of the BLP problem if it's enforced, which should be the case for all articles. Sundayclose ( talk) 00:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The page on John Everett-Heath, who is presumably still living, does not give the place and date of birth (or only the year). I'm looking for those data, but can someone else try to find them? Thank you, -- Gab.pr ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Kia LaBeija ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 ( talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi - the listing for Professor Brian Cox is inaccurate. It lists Cox as a professor of particle physics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester. He is actually listed as Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science on the Departments website.
https://www.physics.manchester.ac.uk/about/people/academic-and-research-staff/
I have tried to amend it a couple of times, but have never done this before and it doesn't appear to have worked. Cox's title is an important distinction as he is relatively little published academically as a particle physicist.
I would love someone to help correct this error.
Thanks, Piers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:A32E:5E01:240B:9A82:E850:AE4D ( talk) 06:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
In the Owen Benjamin article, the Joe Rogan podcast is implied to be a far-right podcast where Benjamin stated alt-right views. If one watches the episode, it is instead a confrontation by Rogan to convince him to stop with far-right Twitter rants. [1] This article heavily implies that it was instead a place where he espoused such views, and I think the language used is loaded. I would agree that the views are indeed alt-right and may be classified as such, but I think the implications of the article are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18e:c501:dad0:e4d0:c14e:d0e1:d1d8 ( talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no commentary on the views of the Daily Wire, Joe Rogan or Steven Crowder or Vox Day, nor on what Owen Benjamin did on them. There is only mention that PragerU is conservative and InfoWars and is far right. P.S. I should clarify I only checked that Joe Rogan wasn't mentioned elsewhere. I do not know if the views or what Owen Benjamin did on those other shows is elaborated elsewhere in our article on . Nil Einne ( talk) 10:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)Beginning in 2018, Benjamin appeared in several videos for conservative media company PragerU.[12][10][13] He also was a guest on several shows by The Daily Wire, and podcasts including those of Joe Rogan and Steven Crowder.[14][10] In September 2018, he appeared on the far-right InfoWars show, and in December was a guest on a show by Vox Day.[10]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
LaMarr Hoyt ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Earlier today (morning of November 30), Dan Evans, who worked for the Chicago White Sox during the 1980s, tweeted out condolences on the death of LaMarr Hoyt. He doesn't have a blue checkmark, but that probably is him. Lots of people have tweeted out condolences, including national baseball reporters with blue checkmarks, but the sourcing is weak. This article is the closest I see to confirmation, saying that Hoyt has "reportedly" died.
I've already semi-protected the article on BLP grounds. But, what gives? Don't you think that the Chicago Tribune would've written an obituary on a former Cy Young Award winner by now? The story hasn't been denied by anyone to this point, but of course that's not proof of anything. – Muboshgu ( talk) 04:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
User Wordie ( /info/en/?search=User:Wordie) is making malicious and libelous changes to Margot Black's page as part of a multi-platform continuing campaign to discredit and harass. This has resulted in employment implications and must stop.
Link to diff: [ [20]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.96.2 ( talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Matthew Kaminski (musician) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) His age does not properly verified from this source [21] that would violate this policy on WP:BLPPRIVACY for birth dates. Also, the misuse of WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPPRIMARY as well. -- 49.150.96.127 ( talk) 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Date of birth : 8 April 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek1204 ( talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Elias Davidsson ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The entry contains the defamatory claim that I, Elias Davidsson, am a "conspiracy theorist". This claim should be removed. I am a scholar and respectable author and have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Please acknowledge the removal of this defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F1:2F28:B086:50F7:1B16:3C64:3C5A ( talk) 21:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There have been a flurry of POV edits by new editors at the article in recent weeks. I'm tempted to just cut it back to where it stood before the disruption (i.e. this version). Whatever the outcome, the lead is completely inappropriate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Should a quote from an op-ed piece in a deprecated source (RT) be used in this article about Frank Furedi? Seems to fail on both WP:RS and notability grounds. Another set of eyes would be appreciated. - Amigao ( talk) 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
He also did a track with The Palmer Squares - I'm dope from their Album Planet of the Shapes whom are not among Watsky's associated acts on his wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.209.245 ( talk) 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Mrtarkin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I wanted to draw the attention of editors here to User:Mrtarkin, whose edits are almost exclusively to BLP articles (particularly those relevant to US politics and media of the last 30 years). In my view, a great many of their edits have as sole purpose to bring emphasis to negative aspects of the subject's history, regardless of encyclopedic merit. Many (but not all) of the user's edits have been reverted, and there have been several messages left on their talk-page, but they haven't engaged in discussion. I am bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard in the hopes that people will check that my impression of their edits is accurate and, if so, for consideration of appropriate next steps. -- JBL ( talk) 16:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Ian Urbina Majority of sources in article are duplicate references to the website of the person in question, or articles written by the person in question. Other sources don't show or reflect the information implicated by the citation mark. Causing into question Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV, V, and NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:3918:A200:D806:E266:9C0C:7244 ( talk) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
David Miller (sociologist) (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views)
There are a number of contentious discussions on the talk page of the above article, which would benefit from un-involved eyes. BobFromBrockley ( talk) 15:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
BLPs should only have top notch sources, especially for controversial content (and controversial BLPs). If it's not academic or top-rated news, it's out. No MEMO, no EI, and no advocacy orgs or think tanks at all. If the thing you want to source is only available through of one these substandard sources, then it just doesn't get covered in a Wikipedia BLP. This question shouldn't even need to be asked, as global consensus is well established and it's a DS area several times over. Levivich 13:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Isn't a QCs legal report commissioned by the University of Bristol as reliable as you can get? Unfortunately, this also makes it original, and there are only two secondary sources: the EI and Jewish Voice for Labour which have published it. I doubt if the BBC, Guardian or any of the MSM will publish because its findings may clash with their editorial stance on this subject. However, I'm aware of a FOI request for the QCs report to be officially released, but once again it might only get distributed in the alternative media.-- Andromedean ( talk) 14:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Another of Miller's websites, Neocon Europe, hosted material written by Kevin MacDonald, an American evolutionary psychologist who appeared as a witness for David Irving in his unsuccessful libel claim against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt. Miller said he removed MacDonald's statements in November 2009, "as soon as I became aware that they had been posted on the site". In December 2009, Miller said: "Macdonald has been repeatedly and rightly (in our view) accused of racism. Moreover, the statements expressed core essentialist anti-semitic/racist ideas. This material should not have been posted and is in no way endorsed by this site. I apologise for, and deeply regret, this error."is incredibly poorly sourced, to two blogs and an opinion piece. That whole paragraph should be dropped. Really, the article needs going over and sources need to be audited. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Dave Rich has now written (rather than tweeted) about the leaked report but has unfortunately decided to do it in the JC. So there is now an expert opinion in a "reliable"source talking about the report. Selfstudier ( talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Another editor persistently inserts birth date for Justin Chart as 1959/1960. I spoke with Justin Chart he informed me that his date of birth is 1960. What do we need to provide to stop this? Mr. Chart knows when he was born.
Also, another editor removed discography from the page. Every item in the discography was linked to Spotify, where the items are clearly available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akooseo ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Could editors have a look at
Paul Krugman and
Joseph Stiglitz, the BLPs of two Nobel Laureate economists, where isolated 2019 media mentions of their favorable comments about the
Green New Deal have been added, reverted as UNDUE and then readded to their biographies?
The Green New Deal initiative failed to gain traction at the time of its introduction by a faction of the Democratic party, which is currently pursuing other environmental policy initiatives that do not use that name or all of the associated program. These BLP mentions appear to tag these two economists with undefined left-leaning agendas or biases related to the Green New Deal, which is currently used by right-wing media as pejorative tag on left-leaning public figures. The now-readded content received no support on the article talk page but was reinserted in the articles.There is no valid sourcing for article text that states they currently support the Green New Deal.
SPECIFICO
talk 18:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Neither of these economists is particularly noted for work on environmental issues, and if they have written on the subject a more detailed or specific description of their work would be more appropriate. These mentions appear to be an effort to tag them as far-left ideologues whose more significant work should be deprecated.
SPECIFICO
talk 22:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
This article talk page could do with some input - the article is largely an autobiography (or written by someone with an admitted very close relationship to the subject) - they now wish to remove the tag which highlights this. ℕ ℱ 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
The Matrix Resurrections ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
As the release date of this movie approaches, this article is seeing an escalation in edits that deliberately misgender the Wachowskis. I am posting here in the hopes of avoiding semi-protection, as many IPs are making constructive edits and there will certainly be new information pouring into the article in the coming days/weeks, and also because I have been claiming the BLP 3RR exemption to revert misgendering edits. Firefangledfeathers 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to add information to this filmmaker's page for a school project, but her filmography isn't showing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alprtor ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a new, well-sourced, but very negative biography of a living person, and should be checked further. Robert McClenon ( talk) 22:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Person is most notable for recent scandal and not much else is written about him. I only know of Denyer because of the scandal. I am hoping other people can expand that article over time. ParallaxVision222 ( talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Eric Zemmour is a candidate for the French presidency. He is a journalist and media pundit, and some of his comments over the years have resulted in criminal charges and arrest or trial in half a dozen cases for defamation, incitement, and various other charges, almost all resulting in acquittal. A discussion is taking place about whether words like defamation or incitement may be used in a subsection header to identify a case where he was charged with that crime, and subsequently found innocent. Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Éric Zemmour#Wording of section headers, for charges he was acquitted of. Thank you. Mathglot ( talk) 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I am escalating this here because it is a matter of gender identification, which creates a critical issue regarding the subject of the article.
The Denyer article had been stable based on multiple sources stating Denyer identifies as female. A single podcast, released in 2021, is being used by an editor to support the claim that Denyer no longer identifies as female. Edits have included pronoun changes and changes of first name back to a masculine form. I'm looking for guidance from the community on how to proceed here:
Assistance from the broader community is appreciated, since the article either needs restored or needs an expedited move to the new (old) name. — C.Fred ( talk) 03:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Greg Austin (American football) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article as repeated references in it to someone named "David" that do not match the biography of the subject of this article. The links do not match the citations to which they are appended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.231.153 ( talk) 18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a dispute on the Brian Kemp article over whether the body of the article should include attributed statements from Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy by Rick L. Hasen (Yale University Press, 2020):
These two sentences were lodged in a section of Kemp's article on accusations that Kemp engaged in voter suppression in Georgia's gubernatorial election, as well as jeopardized the security of the election by among other things exposing the personal voter data of millions. It's been removed by another editor on the basis that the text above is a BLP violation. For what it's worth, the book is peer-reviewed, the author is a law professor who is known for his expertise in election law, and the book covers Georgia's gubernatorial election at great length in the book (the statements are not just off-hand remarks) alongside other problematic elections (overseen by both Democrats and Republicans). I do not see why this is a BLP violation. It's an attributed statement from one of the highest-quality sources (a peer-reviewed monograph authored by a recognized expert in a top tier press). It's the kind of content that Wikipedia articles should have more of. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This article has been plagued by problems for a long time, including COI editing; I just reverted one of those edits. Like so many BLPs, the article is problematic precisely because it is poor quality, somewhat odd considering that, well, it's football. I would like to ask one of you sports editors to take this article and source it, improve it, etc., if only to establish a kind of baseline that we can revert to if further disruption takes place. Thanks. Drmies ( talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
While obviously a criminal convicted of various offences including a single count of manslaughter, significant BLPCRIME issues, in particular calling him a serial killer and his guilt of a murder he has not been charged with. 2A00:23C6:883:8F00:144F:B3ED:81DA:8B6F ( talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Nicole Simone ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
An article for Nicole Simone was created back in 2020 via AfC by a JustACodeMonkey who has clearly stated their COI as a friend of Simone's, see archived diffs of their talkpage. There appears to be an off-wiki dispute regarding animal cruelty allegations at a rescue charity, "Redemption Paws", that Simone runs, which have been discussed on a self-published blog https://redemptionflaws.wordpress.com/. Anonymous users are engaging in edit warring to try to add these allegations to the article cited to this blog. A brand new user NoSpamming, has created a COIN post as well as a malformed AfD request. Can people keep an eye on the situation? Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 00:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I have no idea why this website continues to be brought up. I did not mention it and it's existence is of no relevance to the discussion of JustACodeMonkey's conflict of interest. In an interest in preserving the credibility of Wikipedia I think this conflict of interest, and what seems like obvious promotion as the reason this article has been created is something that needs to be addressed. I will be emailing more concrete evidence as to prove the conflict of interest to the appropriate address in order to preserve the privacy of JustACodeMonkey.
I do not appreciate your attack on my post as "malformed", I joined Wikipedia to address this conflict of interest concern which I believe is very valid, but this is the first time I have used this process. If you could refrain from attacks or judgement in this discussion I would appreciate it. I have stuck to the facts here and so should you. NoSpamming ( talk) 01:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate your language I suppose. I tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page about this but JustACodeMonkey refused to engage, assumed I had something to do with the website in question (I don not), attacked me and he repeatedly deleted the discussion. This is what led me to Propose it for deletion and flag it for conflict of interest. I'm not sure I understand why this was approved in the first place if his conflict of interest was obviously stated then. If he has received payment from Nicole for his web services, even if he wasn't paid directly to create this article it really doesn't look good. I know for a fact that JustACodeMonkey also is responsible for creating her IMDB page. Why have rules against COI if it's actually just allowed?
I have a personal connection to Nicole which I would rather not disclose, I have no personal ill will against her but I have concerns about her suppression of criticism and using her marketing background (through Greg) to take advantage of Wikipedia for promotion. It just doesn't reflect reality of the notability of redemption paws vs the notability of Nicole and her self funded music and acting exploits. As I said on the talk page I think it would be much more appropriate to just have an article about Redemption Paws, although one not written by an associate of Nicole. NoSpamming ( talk) 01:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Bipin Rawat ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Question Can these sources presented on the talk page be used for this BLP content about General Bipin Rawat's caste? [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]
Details: (summary of discussion at
Talk:Bipin_Rawat#Rawat's_caste)
General Bipin Rawat (RIP) recently died. Couple of users are adding controversial caste information, even though Rawat has (to my knowledge) not self identified his caste.
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Categories, lists, and navigation templates
Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Religion
are applicable here. These two links above explain the higher bar needed for such information. These bars are not met.
Castes are part of
Wikipedia:General sanctions/South Asian social groups
Some one added caste information. After his death some tabloid sources picked them up from Wikipedia. See
WP:CIRCULAR.
Arunib had
removed this caste info, RS6784 had restored this into article without generating a consensus about sourcing. Among the 2
WP:TOI links in this diff
Special:Diff/1059406602, the first one from 2016 does not even mention the caste information. The second
WP:TOI link appears to be a mirror. Jagran and
WP:TOI are not reliable sources. Ideally Military history books or the subject's biography should be referred. On top of all these points, these unreliable sources are presenting conflicting information. TimesofIndia (A wiki mirror in this case) says Garhwali Rajput. India.com says "Rawat Rajput". Bharattimes says "Chauhan Rajput". It is obvious that these unreliable sources are making speculations about rawat's caste .Rawat has not self identified with the Rajputs. Like many Indians, he might be against Caste system. Till a reliable source becomes available nothing should should be added. Until then Wikipedia should not take sides into this caste dispute among these newspapers.
The article is currently on the mainpage and such dubious information cannot be put into the article.
Venkat TL (
talk) 14:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Some 'religious warriors' are indiscriminately adding names to lists like List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity and List of converts to Hinduism from Islam without even verifying the sources or self-admission as required by WP:BLPCAT. I have tried to fix a few in the past but always found it reverted without any valid explanations or consensus. -- Bringtar ( talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
There is an endless edit war going on over at Virginia Halas McCaskey with no admin intervention. Additionally, this page continues to receive vandalism on an almost weekly basis. Can someone please step in? -- Jkaharper ( talk) 05:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Jason Binn ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hello I tried making a BOLD edit by removing the following lines on Binn's page but it got replaced by User:Hipal
Binn's ex-girlfriend Amy Dorris says that they attended the U.S. Open in 1997 with
Donald Trump, who Binn had described as his best friend. At the event she alleges that
Donald Trump sexually assaulted her.
[1]
I believe the entire lines shouldn't be on that page. I strongly believe the entire content ought to be removed. It makes no sense. This is biography of a Living person.
I stand to be corrected. Pls take a look. Thanks Ilsecondoordine ( talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
References
Just noted what appears to be black & white, hand-drawn digital caricatures that have been added to the infoboxes of several BLPs. For example, see,
I don't recall seeing these types of images used like this before. I'm not particularly familiar with image policy, so I'm just seeking feedback. Any editors that are versed in image use, and of course BLPs, if they could take a look at these articles and post some insight, it would be appreciated. They're all from the same account on Commons. I posted an ANI there similar to this one, and of course notified them of the ANI there. They don't appear to have an account here (on en.wiki), but I will add a note of this report to the Commons ANI report. Thanks - wolf 07:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I came across this article and already made some minor changes for the purpose of impartial tone(WP:IMPARTIAL). Since he is a quite well-known opinion-based critic about China in Youtube, I have the impression that this article might be too one-sided. That's why I am asking more people to review these pieces. The problem I have spotted is that biography relied heavily on interviews, which might not be reliable. And those media outlets who cited him mostly are from the countries that might have conflict of interest with China (VOA and some Taiwanese news etcs). Also, the section "Career after leaving China" needs more references.
Either way, I am neutral and probably wont take part in editing this article anytime soon. Someone97816 ( talk) 00:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
A Paris based IP user is edit warring to change the birthdate of Christian Rosa. Their Artnet profile says they were born in September 12, 1982 [66]. While their FBI indictment says they were 43 as of October 2021 [67], putting their birthdate as c. 1978. The IP is edit warring to solely include the 1978 date. Given that the sources conflict, shouldn't both be included? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Is this a good enought source for BLP purposes? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)To explain, Rosa used the birth year of 82 ', which is why it was mentioned in numerous reports until recently (only last week in profile, for example). In fact, it is wrong. Whatever the reason why he made himself younger: 78' is his actual birth year ...
Rob Monster is going to be a hard article to get right, as people understandably have strong feelings about Mr Monster. It's not a good article for a BLP I would say, so I started vetting the refs. The first I vetted was a Huffpost article, since it was used 19 times. I noted that:
That's the first ref vetted, and of course I took it out and all fraught material solely ref'd by that (while explaining on the talk page), as BLP requires prompt action ( dif). But there's been some opposition there, and my edit was rolled back, and the article's under discretionary sanctions, which I think means 1RR, so I've fouled out. There are other refs to be vetted so let's get to work. Advice, comments, etc.? Herostratus ( talk) 14:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
While we're here, can someone weigh in on Herostratus' opinion ( [69], [70]) that we should remove citations to the Huffington Post article that are supporting non-contentious statements (date of birth, etc.), and either leave them uncited or with {{ citation needed}} templates, because the title of the article shouldn't appear in the references? I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that instructs us not to use references that would otherwise be usable for non-contentious statements of fact because the title is objectionable to one editor, or that leaving the content in place and uncited is somehow preferable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Dave Scotti now known as Davy Garlo. See Screen Actors Guild, YouTube, Webpage, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoJinx ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
In August, an anonymous editor added information sourced from what appears to be a fake news website naming the romantic partner of Prince. I am concerned this is a violation of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE in the case of the supposed romantic partner; thus I recommend that revisions between the addition of the info and the removal be revdel'd. Arbor to SJ ( talk) 07:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
This is newly created. While the person has coverage, I am concerned that the article is maybe presenting a very negative spin and is almost only on Rutherford County, Tennessee, juvenile jail controversy. I do not know enough about this myself to fix it. Pikavoom ( talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
1)Profile picture is not there. Full birth date is not written(24th april , 2000).
2)My new regional films have not been added:
1)Munna Bhai (with Pradeep Pandey Chintu) 2) Didiya Ke Dewar Dil Le Gail
3)Incomplete information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.239.119 ( talk) 07:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm writing here instead of editing the article, which I really want to do.
Matt Sanchez died on September 11, 2018.
I remained in touch with him after my Wikimedia days and had a few conversations over the years. I met him in person one time when I was visiting Southern California. As controversial a character that he was, he was an incredibly likeable individual.
His sister and I knew of each other because we were both in Berkeley and associated with theological schools. She got in touch with me after Matt died and invited me to the celebration of life, held in San Jose the following month, which I was sadly unable to attend.
I don't know what to do in an instance like this. There was no obituary or notice in the news when Matt died. He was mostly off the grid in his last couple years. When I met him in person he was driving for Uber and wasn't exactly living at the top of his game.
Nobody covered his death, not the porn media, not Fox News, not anyone who he was previously associated with. So I have no sources I can add. Just my personal attestation that he is, in fact, dead.
I don't know if we have any precedents for this sort of situation but if someone may guide me, please help
Bastique ☎ call me! 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Many weeks has passed since Draft:Soheil Beiraghi's article has created, but no one reviewed it yet. Could one of the admins do me a favor and take a look at it? Thank you. Kabootaremesi ( talk) 09:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
77.96.159.195 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
An anonymous user has been repeatedly restoring (most recent diff linked) a "controversy" section consisting solely of a mention of drug use by the subject, as cited to dubious sources. I and at least two other users have been reverting this editor on the grounds of WP:BLPREMOVE. -- Dylan620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Birth records prove she was born in 1943:
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=4431959
Name: Carly Simon
Birth Date: 25 Jun 1943
Birth Place: Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA
Certificate Number: 21212
She claims 1945, but IMDb and Goodreads list her true age:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800089/
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/173740.Carly_Simon
Those are not dispositive, but the birth record is.
Her sisters Joanna Simon (October 20, 1936) and Lucy Simon (May 5, 1940) are also older than their Wiki pages say:
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3992145
https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3832907
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2048095/
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800254/
WhatsTheTruth00 ( talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
See the 1979 Opticon yearbook for Haddam-Killingworth High School in Higganum, Connecticut; she is pictured on page 105 as a graduating senior:
https://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Haddam-Killingworth-High-School/82172?page=105
Several online sources list her true year of birth:
https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001152
https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/10803955.Illeana_Douglas
https://www.peliplat.com/en/library/celeb/pc12638550
https://www.cinemaclock.com/stars/illeana-douglas
http://douglashistory.co.uk/history/illeanadouglas.htm
https://www.myagecalculator.org/famous-birthdays/actress/how-old-is-illeana-douglas/
WhatsTheTruth00 ( talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Many sources (mostly tabloids and unreliable blogs) have talked about the supposed real name and birth date of Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter) (not sharing here per BLP, but it can be easily Googled if you wish to know). The only sources that might be OK that reported this are The Tab, Manchester Evening News, and HITC, but I'm still wary of adding it unless Francis says so himself or a more reliable source comes out with it. There's also a few, also mostly unreliable, sources reporting that he is or was a music producer. There's been a lot of IP addresses attempting to add the real name/birthdate to the article, so this is why I'm asking. Thoughts? wizzito | say hello! 12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)