Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

BLPs created by User:Davidcannon (un-archived)[edit]

Note that I have manually unarchived this thread. See also WP:ANI#Davidcannon's_BLPs. El_C 04:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)>Reply[reply]

For some background, reading this conversation is useful context. Davidcannon is an adminstrator that has created 600+ articles, many of them which are BLPs. From a brief spotcheck, I'm not sure going to ANI is the best course of action (and honestly the idea terrifies me when it's not really something I've tried to do before). Two of the articles they've created have recently been deleted: Laisa Digitaki and Samuela Matakibau. However, the brief spotcheck has somewhat convinced me that not all of their biographies are like this. There does seem to be issues every once and awhile in regards to controversial unsourced information [1]. 600+ articles is a lot of articles to check and I thought that maybe here would be the better place to fix any problems that may be identified. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upon further inspection, some articles that could likely use a second set of eyes include:
  1. Ben Padarath
  2. Angie Heffernan - done
  3. Sakiusa Tuisolia - done
  4. Viliame Naupoto - done
  5. Willem Ouweneel
  6. Jimi Koroi - done
  7. Pita Driti - done
  8. Ballu Khan - links added
  9. Peter Ridgeway - done
  10. Imraz Iqbal - done
  11. Richard Naidu - done
  12. Meli Bainimarama - done
  13. Litia Qionibaravi - done
  14. Viliame Seruvakula - done
  15. Vyas Deo Sharma - done
  16. Akuila Yabaki - links added
  17. Saula Telawa - links added
  18. Jone Baledrokadroka - done
  19. Naomi Matanitobua - links added
  20. Jale Baba - done
  21. Sakeasi Butadroka - done
  22. Kolinio Rokotuinaceva - done
  23. Lagamu Vuiyasawa - links added
  24. Asesela Ravuvu
  25. Asenaca Caucau
  26. Simione Kaitani - done
  27. Kenneth Zinck - done
  28. Ofa Swann - done
  29. Injimo Managreve
  30. Kaliopate Tavola - links added
  31. Ateca Ganilau
  32. Petero Mataca - links added
  33. Rakuita Vakalalabure - links added
  34. Daniel Fatiaki
  35. James Ah Koy

There may be more. I'm going to be taking a break for now. As I previously stated, more eyes and input is welcome. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also pinging The Wordsmith because of the aforementioned discussion that started this thread. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Davidcannon's speciality on Wikipedia was Fiji and its unstable politics. As far as I am aware, he created well-sourced articles (but with embedded external links rather than references), but the links were mostly to Fijian news sites, and many years later, the links no longer worked and Davidcannon deleted them. Some of these links could be restored using web archives. For example, looking at the just-deleted article Laisa Digitaki, the references to are recoverable, but references to and appear not to be. I know there's a bot which can recover dead links, but for it to run, we would have to first restore the dead links preferably without removing subsequent improvements to the article, and we would end up with an article which has not been substantially updated for many years with some unrecoverable links and dubious notability. I certainly do not have the interest in Fijian politics to want to tackle this myself. Two editors currently active in that area are @IdiotSavant: and @Thiscouldbeauser:, would you have any interest in working on such articles? As you're not administrators and can't see the deleted article we're discussing, perhaps we could move it to draft space and blank it if you're sufficiently interested to assess it. (I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit (but he did not actually do so upon reviewing the edit), so I want to make it clear I have no intention of undeleting this article without a clear consensus to do so.)-gadfium 00:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd suggest raising it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Fiji, which does have some active users (people who did bios of MPs elected in the 2022 Fijian general election would be a good start). I'm currently doing a bit of cleanup for that project, and focusing on BLPs at the moment. I'd noticed that lots were created by Davidcannon, but not the removal of dead sources. I'll start checking for them, and see what I can do to restore them. Though there is an underlying issue with source availability for that period of Fijian history - major media outlets don't have archives going back that far (some having scrubbed them to avoid trouble with the military regime), and we've also lost the East-West Centre's Pacific Islands Report mirror of news coverage. Some of the latter is archived, but its very haphazard.
WRT the specific article, there appear to be sources available on RNZ. -- IdiotSavant (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given the similarity of content, references for Laisa Digitaki should be available on Angie Heffernan.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So you mean articles about Fijian politicians? Sure, I can create a few of them in the coming weeks if I find enough good info. I haven't created articles about people themselves before though. A quick Google search for Laisa Digitaki comes up with a deleted Wikipedia page, a LinkedIn profile, social media accounts (Facebook and Instagram) and articles about her from generally unreliable sites (i.e FijiLeaks and Fiji News Wars, the latter is a blog hosted on Blogspot which I only found out about today and the former being a site is often critical of Frank Bainimarama and claims to be like WikiLeaks), as well as other random stuff, e.g an e-book on Google Books about her and several other coup-era Fijian politicians and two random TikTok videos. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its more a case of trawling existing articles, checking whether links have been deleted, restoring them, and adding other references as required (oh, and adding them to appropriate WikiProjects, because not everything seems to be appropriately tagged). Required skills: using the wayback machine and reference templates, and searching appropriate news sources (Fiji Sun, Fiji Times, Fiji Village, RNZ).-- IdiotSavant (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. There was still this content that I removed after you striked as Angie Heffernan "done" [2]. At least from what I've seen, I'm concerned that some of these articles wouldn't follow WP:BLPCRIME. An example is Ben Padarath – he was never elected as a politician (WP:NPOL) and there's a whole section with mostly unreferenced content detailing his alleged crimes. It's been like that since creation [3]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:37, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's definitely a problem there with undue focus (I assume because of when it was written), but the article may also need expansion - there's stuff he has been convicted of (see here and here), but its not in the article. OTOH, that's not especially notable, and honestly barring the sedition charge, he's not someone I'd remotely consider creating an article for if there wasn't one already (so maybe he's a candidate for AfD?). Regarding sedition, where there doesn't seem to be a conviction yet, is there a guideline for political crimes? Because for a lot of Fijian political figures there's a history of oppression by the military regime, sedition or equivalent charges brought and later dropped, and not including them would be leaving out something very significant.-- IdiotSavant (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gadfium "I am aware that User:Everyking was desysopped for offering to restore a deleted edit". This is well before I started serious wiki-editing. However, a more recent counter-example is Micaela Schäfer, which I deleted per WP:G10 / WP:BLPDELETE and was subsequently restored by SoWhy who cleaned it up and fixed all the BLP violations. There was a thread at AN running at the time, where I explicitly stated I had no issue with SoWhy doing this. So I think that's your answer - ask if The Wordsmith is okay with you restoring the article for the purposes of fixing the BLP issues, and if they are, then just do it.
A further point that's worth mentioning is that WP:BLPPROD originally only applied for articles created after the policy was introduced in 2010. Then, in 2017, this grandfather clause was removed by consensus. So at the time Davidcannon removed the dead news links, he might have reasonably assumed BLPPROD didn't apply because the article was verified at one point. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:36, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We used to have a grandfather clause? Are there any others that are still in effect? It seems bizzare to me that we could ever decide anything by consensus and then go "but it doesn't apply to any articles created before now". I'm interested in the rationales that were used at the time. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people/Archive 7#RfC: Remove the grandfather clause? for further reading. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to briefly clarify that, it was a very unusual situation that led to the grandfather clause being created. The BLPPROD process was created because we had an absurd nightmare of something like 80K completely unreferenced BLPs, and one camp was mass summary deleting them while the other thought we should try sourcing them all instead of deleting. As part of the compromise for dealing with them, the grandfather clause was established to prevent people from just tagging them all at once while the effort to source them was underway. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:09, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ritchie333 and Gadfium: I do object to restoring the history of those two articles either in mainspace or anywhere else, since the contents of them are bad enough that they'd be a gross BLP vio in any namespace. Pretty much all they covered was allegations of crimes committed and being investigated. What I can do is email the deleted versions (and the sources used, if you like) to any editor interested in rewriting. I have no issue with a bio (or even a stub) for those subjects being recreated if it can comply with our policies, just not the history of those two. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:29, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've gone through 2004 Pitcairn Islands sexual assault trial, largely written by David, and the amount of unsourced depictions of underage sexual activity are beyond the pale, and if a new editor did that, I'd revert and redact it. And to make it abundantly clear, my issue here is adherence to WP:BLPSOURCES and our longstanding policy is that unsourced claims involving living persons should be removed - I have no opinion on the content. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like his contributions were mostly in 2004.[4] Were the inline sourcing requirements different then? Was he an administrator then? Wikipedia policies and BLP (if it existed) enforcement may have been more lax then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. BLP was first started in 2005 by Slim Virgin, who was probably one of the greatest Wikipedians to ever exist and someone I very much admired and looked up to, and even then it took many years to build and refine this policy into what it has become today. Rules were definitely much more lax then (it was basically the Wild West in those days) and not many people gave much thought to the real-world repercussions of the things we do here. Wikipedia has grown up a lot since those days, but there is still a lot from back then that needs to be cleaned up. Thank god we had someone with the knowledge and foresight of Slim Virgin. She has been sorely missed. Zaereth (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had quite a few arguments with SlimVirgin back in the day, but BLP was one of her greatest contributions. I do know it wasn't taken as seriously as it is today at first. We had Rachel Marsden in 2006, Badlydrawnjeff in 2007, and Footnoted quotes in 2008 which especially strengthened it by creating BLP Special Enforcement. Even until late 2009/early 2010 there was a strong minority who felt that completely unsourced BLPs weren't a problem and it led to that mass deletion and the establishment of WP:BLPPROD. Yes, Slim will be missed but she helped get us where we are today. I probably wouldn't go bringing Davidcannon's articles up at the dramaboards since it was absolutely a different time with looser standards, but we do need to clean up the mess now by making them conform to Wikipedia's current BLP standards or summarily deleting them. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe pin this to keep it from archiving again until the list has a chance to be seen by more people? Valereee (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Absolutely. I had my own disagreements with some of Wikipedia's policies when I first started, in particular the whole "Verifiability not truth" phrase (which I still think is very poorly worded) but I had a great discussion with Sarah in which she explained the reasoning behind this seemingly contradictory statement, and in her reasoning I agreed entirely. I actually never had much interaction with her aside from that, but over the years you get to know people even if you don't interact. The first article I worked on was the flashtube article, which was mostly just a bunch of really plausible-sounding bunk that people made up because it sounded good in their heads. Same with the tempering (metallurgy) article, or the basic fighter maneuvers article. They were dreadful, but most Wikipedia articles started out that way. It was new territory and people were creating articles by the thousands each day. It was a very different time. I wouldn't waste a lot of energy assigning blame or shame. Like anything, we just have to tackle these things as we find them and move on to the next. Zaereth (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She sounds amazing. I don't think I ever personally interacted with her, but I'm familiar with the username. I had no idea that she was instrumental in starting WP:BLP, we really should have a "history of Wikipedia" outlining the major changes we've experienced throughout time. I've noticed some stuff has changed since I started editing in 2018, I can only imagine the scale at which other who have been here for longer experience that. I agree that tackling this and moving on is the best course of action. If I had known that I could've just unarchived the thread, I don't think I would've started the ANI one. I just wanted to make sure these issues didn't disappear into a void and then someone else a decade later would be here to say something. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
She did some great things, but she could be absolutely infuriating to argue with. She also had a flair for the dramatic and a habit of unnecessary escalation, sandbagging discussions she didn't like and even wheel warring; there's a reason she has at least 3 or 4 Arbcom cases named after her personally. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks like RfA was in June 2004. And yes, sourcing requirements were far different then. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that I've used Template:DNAU at the top of this thread to prevent archiving; once the thread is concluded anybody can just remove that line to allow the bots to archive it as normal. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure where to put my own comment. Feel free to move it or remove it. I've only just seen this, as my attendance on Wikipedia is intermittent at the moment. Most of the BLPs in question are Fijian biographies. There was a military coup in 2006, and many of the online sources (news outlets, etc) got censored. A lot of them have not been restored. Much as I would like to go back and add sources, I cannot do so when they no longer exist.
I fully support the BLP rules, and will fully support the deletion of any article of mine that cannot reasonably be made to comply with the rules as they stand. David Cannon (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Davidcannon: Thanks for the response! I realize that not everyone is on Wikipedia 24/7 (I once took a year wikibreak myself) so I'm glad to hear from you even if it wasn't immediately. IdiotSavant has had some luck with finding sources that were archived, but as you implied, many have been lost to time. If you have some extra time, maybe you could try to help? Many hands make light work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, if you had any questions about how article creation standards have changed, maybe Ritchie333 or The Wordsmith would have some useful advice? I haven't been around as long as they have. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the advice :-) And yes, I'll be happy to return to the project to help with the cleanup whenever I've got time. Looking forward to it!David Cannon (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note - another resource to help with these: Australia and New Zealand Reference Centre Plus on EBSCOHost has the Fiji Times from the relevant period.--IdiotSavant (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bob Morley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Arryn Zech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Reasons I believe it violates the biographies of living persons policies


Wikipedia:Point of view Specifically the indication of relative prominence of opposing views.

This is in regards to the wikipedia page of Bob Morley (actor), the page cites gossip websites including a statement from his ex where she alleges abuse. Upon trying to add other information representing other sides, or more importantly adding life altering events such as knee surgery and marriage, gets instantly removed. The information has the same citations from news sites as well as videos from public appearances of the involved individuals. A timeline of his relationship with his current wife, providing another viewpoint on the accusations (with the same citations as the first accusation) has been deleted as well. Every addition is rejected even providing sources (the same sources as those added before)

Could someone take a look at it? It would be of my interest to add to the article in a way that represents all events and sides.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4R4O (talkcontribs) 04:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheating allegations does seem like WP:BLPGOSSIP and the cited sources are not the strongest. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time. Also, the additional citations added to give "another side" of the story have been even worse than the existing sources. Also, I have serious questions as to whether the person who posted this original inquiry is doing so in good faith, considering their thinking that geekspin and Hollywood life are reliable sources, when it is clear they are NOT. A LOT of page have been editing that page and removing/adding content recently, and the OP is one of those people, causing the page to be muddled beyond belief, leading to situations which almost lead to edit wars. It is really bad.Historyday01 (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've discussed the same thing in the Bob Morley talk, so I'll not repeat too much from there, but one thing I want to point out is that this comment (Perhaps, but I'd say that in this case, the sources are as good as we can get at the current time.) to me is all the more stronger reasons to not include these claims (or drastically reduce how much we're talking about the claims).
Our requirements for how reliable sources should be, should not be lowered because one topic is less covered. Soni (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's true. I only added it originally because I was under the impression that it was the "right" thing to do, and never expected this much discussion about it. Historyday01 (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is Wikipedia, we have discussions that can go far and wide over the most trivial topics heh. Sometimes, people just have strong opinions about policies we use here. And so long discussions often go in circles and need explicit closes.
But also, we need to be extra careful when talking about living people we directly affect by just "what goes into their article" so the extra concern and scrutiny is warranted here. Soni (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, I can understand that. Historyday01 (talk) 15:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There needs to be a clear consensus before restoring any disputed content without fixing the issue which are the sources supporting the contentious claims. Are there are no better ones out there? If they aren't touching the topic, wikipedia shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You stated in a recent edit that "compromise text doesn't address the problems with the given sources", and I have to thoroughly disagree with your argument, as I would say NONE of the sources cited in the compromise text I came up with are unreliable. Some sources added by other users are, but the ones I added are reliable, plain and simple. Apart from talking about this on this discussion, there are also the various ongoing discussions on Talk: Bob Morley. I would hope you involve yourself in the latter. This is NOT the time to be acting boldly.Historyday01 (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're going to have to explain why continuing to use those same sources fixes the issue on how DUE this is. It doesn't meet WP:BURDEN nor WP:ONUS if people are disputing its reliablity on a BLP matter. Soni, maybe you can explain since you originally raised that objection. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed my previous comment. Please see my comment at the end of this discussion with new proposed text.Historyday01 (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly I'll be frank and say I'm out of my depth on this one. I genuinely think DUE concerns are met with that wording, so if there's a deeper BLP related reasoning behind why they aren't, I don't know it yet. Happy to be informed correctly, if it's a case of me being not well informed. Else I think this wording is acceptable enough. Soni (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You had a problem with the sourcing itself. I did and a couple of other editors have agreed with removal per WP:BLPGOSSIP. To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? You had mentioned a heightened standard for BLPs. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, did you believe the reliability of those sources met wp:v but not WP:DUE originally? That's more or less how I understood it. For a claim that's exceptional (the way it was originally phrased) these sources weren't enough. Since WP:DAILYDOT implies it's not an unreliable source, so to speak, but also not the most reliable?
For the claim phrased later Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse I considered it okay because it met the threshold of being WP:DUE for me. The claims are made in a single sentence without implying either side's correctness. I considered Daily Dot to be a single source sufficient to support that claim (or similarly phrased).
That's pretty much the extent of how I understand it now. Sorry my BLP knowledge doesn't go deep enough, so I get the "BLPs should be held to a higher standard" but I don't know if this statement still breaks that expected standard. Hopefully that clarifies my stance and also where I'm confused on our usual way of doing things. Soni (talk) 08:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What makes me doubt the seriousness of dailydot's article (besides having dubious strength as a source for wikipedia standards when it comes to contentious issues or claims: WP:DAILYDOT + Nociteboard) is their speculation about Taylor's involvement despite the fact that she was never named (appeals to speculative adverbs like "seemingly" - speculations are considered counterfactual fallacies: articles containing fallacies should be avoided - the writer also appeals to "weasel words"/"glittering generality": "Many are now accusing Taylor of being a hypocrite" WP:BLPGOSSIP). From how I perceive it, its tone and sentences are quite "gossipy", even more so considering that Zech's claims about cheating and alleged verbal/emotional abuse were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything: claims require specific evidence.
Besides, as I said in a previous interaction, I think that if the claim is mentioned, the nature of it should be clarified. This was done only through social media, not before any authority (police or judicial). There are no charges or contentious situation legally reported by an article (as for example occurs in the article about Marie Avgeropoulos, where it is specified that the contentious situation involved charges that were later dropped by her boyfriend who had the injuries - this was also reported by outlets like the LATimes and People - it is worth mentioning that the latter can certainly be considered more reliable than dailydot, but even so the encyclopedia advises against using it as a source when it comes to contentious issues).
To summarize, I think that at least the nature of the claims (social media) should be specified in Zech's article where for now the claims are still mentioned. Without a clarification of this type, I think that the article in a first reading can give the impression that there were formal allegations.
I believe that for now this is all I can say about the solidity of the sources and the wording used in the article. Editngwiki (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. If I understand you correctly, the claims should be mentioned on Zech's page but not Morley's? Is that correct? Historyday01 (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Historyday01 I hope not. As I've said to you earlier, BLP or sourcing issues do not vanish just based on what article we're editing. If the sources are spurious enough to not support adding claims of abuse to one page, then they cannot be added to the other.
I think there's enough consensus of the same on this noticeboard to require removal. I will do so now (and we can re-add sections if there's consensus to add parts of it) Soni (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is true, I suppose. Not going to repeat what I've seen in other comments, but currently there doesn't seem to be any consensus on this topic (I don't think), from reading this discussion. I'd be fine with having it removed from the Zech page for the time being until a consensus is reached. Regardless of the consensus decision reached on this topic, would it be ok to use the Daily Dot and articles as further evidence of Zech's bisexuality? The Daily Dot quotes Zech as saying "When he found out that I am bisexual, he was furious", while the article says "Zach claimed Morely [sic] was "furious" after she revealed she is bisexual". Historyday01 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Historyday01 I saw a clear consensus, but I'm happy if someone else uninvolved (and not SPA, duh) wants to re-evaluate or formally close this. It looks unclear at a glance, but that's almost all because of back-and-forth threaded discussion after discussion on this, which only very involved editors have an interest in.
And while it's not clearly specified by every single editor (because the question being asked was slightly altered every few replies), this is roughly the stances from the messages I saw (apart from myself) -
As I have an involved opinion on this, I did not evaluate policy backing behind each stance (WP:PNSD), but IMHO it still does not support adding the text. So yes, I did see a clear consensus (which I'm happy to be corrected on, if it changes/someone else wants to confirm it) Soni (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say that's a pretty good run-down of the opinions at this point. I would say it is leaning toward not adding the text, but I'm not sure how SPAs factor in, when it comes to a formal closure. Historyday01 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As for sexual orientation, I surprisingly cannot find a policy about that. But as before, I think primary sources are fine when noting it. So long as we're only noting down the bisexuality without getting into any other BLP issues, I think that'll be fine. Soni (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Great. As it turns out, I had already added the sources there, and one of those bots added the sources in for the sentence "Her bisexuality was previously confirmed in media reporting in July 2020". Historyday01 (talk) 01:36, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    As for her sexuality, she mentioned it in these panels:
    2020, March: The Chicago Comic & Entertainment Expo (C2E2) - 4:30.
    2020, May: RWBY Live Stream GalaxyCon - 23:07
    2018, July: Montreal Comic Con - 5:20. It is mentioned by her coworker, Lindsay Jones ("Me and Arryn are bi").
    2013, June: RT Podcast Ep. 121 - 22:35. It is mentioned by Miles Luna, her ex.
    There are records that she has been openly bisexual since at least 2014 (via her old tumblr account @hazleapricot: screenshots 1 and 2 + more vaguely when she said she "is part of the LGBT community"). However, I have not found an article or interview from that time, but perhaps the video of the conventions will be enough, especially the one from C2E2 (2020). Editngwiki (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for providing those. Historyday01 (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I found the method to close the discussion (Marking a closed discussion).
    Unless someone has something else to contribute, I guess we can proceed. Editngwiki (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    My understanding is that to close a discussion, we need an uninvolved editor, so no one here that has commented so far. Historyday01 (talk) 19:01, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment Should also include Arryn Zech in this discussion, as it is the same topic/sources. The information has been disputed being included in Morley's article back when it first happened, it recently got added back in after Zech's page was created a few weeks ago. I added her into this discussion. And since we are here on noticeboard, while not on her page, Eliza Taylor's name keeps being added into the accusations, and she wasn't even named in Zech's statement. Some of those gossip sources inferred she might of been referring to her when she said "a girl", but BLP wise I don't think we should be including her name at all especially with lackluster sources. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps. I think the current compromise text (at the end of this discussion) I just added in works to clear up a lot of the issues with the previous text. This discussion is muddled by people like the OP who want to "balance" out the page by adding in subpar sources (like links to Instagram and YouTube), which are not acceptable in contentious issues like this. I would say that Eliza Taylor shouldn't be added to Zech's page. Of course, Taylor is on Morley's page, but shouldn't be connected to the accusations as current sources only speculate that Zech is referring to Taylor (who she doesn't mention directly), which isn't enough evidence to keep her there. I will say this whole discussion has been a learning experience... I suppose. Historyday01 (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I think the current text on the matter in both pages is fine. It's brief, to the point, and not too detailed about the nature of the claims or Taylor's may-have-may-have-not involvement, just says clearly that there was a relationship and accusations without getting into the weeds. I feel reasonably certain that Morley's fans are still going to attempt to force their narratives in both pages regardless of how impartial we are or how much we do or do not mention or if we mention anything at all, and I don't think we should omit the topic altogether, so I think it's best to just have this brief summary and leave it at that unless better sources arise. silvia (BlankpopsiclesilviaASHs4) (inquire within) 17:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I came up with new compromise text at the end of this discussion, which I believe addresses the issues people are having so far in this discussion, by not mentioning the accusations at all. Since there was, apparently, too much disagreement about the previous text, I see no reason to even try to defend it. It just seems like a waste of energy on my part. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment@Discospinster, @–DMartin, @Skywatcher68, and @Editngwiki your comments in this discussion would be appreciated.Historyday01 (talk) 20:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain how you chose this list of users per WP:CANVAS? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm guessing because it's because we left comments at Talk:Bob Morley.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:36, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see a lot of participants missing if that is the case. Should they be notified? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe everyone else I didn't mention in my previous comment is mentioned at the end of this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just chose those on the talk page discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not notifying everyone in the discussion is WP:VOTESTACKING Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. I did not add those people to "stack" the vote, I just believed, incorrectly, that most of those in the talk page discussions were already here. It's as simple as that.Historyday01 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't really have any opinion here; I only stumbled into this while patrolling recent changes one day. I did ask Google about this just now and found at least one accusation that Zech has been lying; whether or not this has any bearing on recent edits, I don't know.   –Skywatcher68 (talk) Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm. Well this supports the case for the compromised text I note in another comment. Historyday01 (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment As I stated on Talk:Bob Morley, I would be willing to reduce it to the following compromise text: Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019.[1][2][3] I have since removed the following sentence, per the below discussion: Previously, his relationship with Zech had only been rumored.[4] If this text was chosen, it could avoid us delving into the accusations (as it doesn't mention them at all), and it may address some of the other comments on here. If accepted, similar text could then be added to Zech's page. Historyday01 (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If two people were dating, and the only coverage was rumors until after the relationship ended, is it really biographical detail necessary in an encyclopedia? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If all the page is saying is that they were in a relationship, I do not see that as controversial or violating ANY Wikipedia rules. Morley and Zech are notable figures, plain and simple. The least we can do is mention they were in a relationship, and then add warnings in hidden text telling people to add nothing else. Furthermore, adding something about the relationship would make it easier to push off the bad actors who are editing the pages of Morley and Zech more easily than getting into endless edit wars. So, in that sense, the compromised text would have further value. Historyday01 (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why even mention the second sentence? Has Morley confirmed the relationship? How are these sites ascertaining there was one beyond looking at her postings? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I suppose, but I only added the second sentence because it is another source (which mentioned they were rumored as being together). However, I wouldn't be altogether opposed to getting rid of the last sentence. It appears that Zech posted about this relationship a LOT (including photos of them together, from what I've seen), but since she deleted her Twitter (I noted about the archived tweets on the Wayback Machine at Talk:Arryn Zech#Relationship with Miles Luna), and likely similar posts on Instagram (which is notoriously hard to archive, from my experience, apart from using sites like Ghostarchive or, as the Wayback Machine isn't always good at saving such posts), so there isn't as much evidence on her side of the relationship. I would guess that would be the same for Morley. I haven't done a deep dive through his Twitter or any other social media, but if I have to guess, I would think he did the same as Zech and deleted his photos/tweets which showed her. Historyday01 (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This all sounds incredibly gossipy and unencyclopedic. What is the point, and what am I supposed to learn about the subject by reading this? This just reads like the stuff of tabloids, not what one would expect from an encyclopedia. Zaereth (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ok. Saying "Morley's relationship with voice actress Arryn Zech ended on Valentines Day 2019" (the compromise text) doesn't seem gossipy or anything like that. Honestly, it seems like the blandest text possible, devoid of any controversy, and I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with it.Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Personally I prefer @Soni's edit, and I believe the whole statement from Zech had many inconsistencies, and, at times, involved mind reading and super hearing. I don't think it's a reliable source, but I'm willing to compromise if it keeps it entirely on her page and not darkening others with accusations in which there's no legal resolution, since there seems to be no other resolution for @Historyday01. Lexaevermorewoods (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hmm. Well, as I said in other comments recently on here, I'd be fine with keeping it removed from Morley's page (where it is currently not present, as it was removed near the beginning of this discussion), and keeping it on Zech's page (since she is the one who made the accusations), where it currently reads as follows:
    Zech's relationship with actor Bob Morley ended on Valentines Day 2019, with Zech later accusing Morley of emotional and verbal abuse.[1][2][5] Previously, Morley's relationship with Zech had only been rumored.[6] Historyday01 (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I searched for interviews given by both during 2025-2019 and neither names the other. Sometimes they made comments about a "boyfriend" or "girlfriend" without giving specifics or names. The only article in which Zech is named says that the relationship was merely rumored. I have not been able to find a source that lives up to the requirements of the encyclopedia.
    Bearing this in mind, I agree that bringing this issue up can give the article a "gossipy style" that we clearly want to avoid here. Editngwiki (talk) 00:37, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, that is the one article I found earlier. Would it be ok to mention Zech's accusations on her page, but not Morley's? Because I would be completely fine with that compromise, and with leaving Zech out of Morley's page. Historyday01 (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
reference list


  1. ^ a b Sullivan, Eilish O. (July 4, 2020). "'The 100's' Bob Morley accused of abuse". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on March 20, 203. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
  2. ^ a b Levine, Daniel S. (July 7, 2020). "'The 100' Star Bob Morley Accused of Abusive Behavior". Archived from the original on March 29, 2023. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
  3. ^ Burt, Kayti (July 26, 2020). "The 100 Ending Will Change Our Perspective on the Series, Says Showrunner". Den of Geek. Archived from the original on December 9, 2022. Retrieved March 30, 2023. Since then, allegations of emotional and verbal abuse have been made against Morley by ex-girlfriend Arryn Zech
  4. ^ Wehner, Carolyn (April 10, 2018). "Bob Morley Thinks Fans Should Expect Some Changes In The Fifth Season Of 'The 100'". The Music. SGC Media Investments Pty Ltd. Archived from the original on March 29, 2023. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
  5. ^ Burt, Kayti (July 26, 2020). "The 100 Ending Will Change Our Perspective on the Series, Says Showrunner". Den of Geek. Archived from the original on December 9, 2022. Retrieved March 30, 2023. Since then, allegations of emotional and verbal abuse have been made against Morley by ex-girlfriend Arryn Zech
  6. ^ Wehner, Carolyn (April 10, 2018). "Bob Morley Thinks Fans Should Expect Some Changes In The Fifth Season Of 'The 100'". The Music. SGC Media Investments Pty Ltd. Archived from the original on March 29, 2023. Retrieved March 29, 2023.
Comment: I think it would be in the best interest of all of us to conclude this discussion relatively soon, either toward removing or keeping the content, at least in the next couple days (I'm not sure how long BLP discussions typically run). I think it would do a disservice to keep this discussion dragging on. As such, @Discospinster, @WikiDan61, @–DMartin, @TimeTravellingBunny, @Kizo2703, @Lexaevermorewoods, and @Isaidnoway your comments in this discussion would be appreciated. @Morbidthoughts, I believe that's everyone from Talk:Bob Morley and Talk:Arryn Zech, but if I missed someone (that isn't already here), I apologize in advance for that.Historyday01 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Note that multiple accounts participating in this discussion have few to no edits outside this topic (and not many edits overall). If there will be someone evaluating consensus at the end of this, I'd recommend taking that into account. Soni (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's true. Users like Lexaevermorewoods, TimeTravellingBunny, and Kizo2703 are single-purpose accounts.Historyday01 (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it should be removed from Zech's site too, cause it's nothing else but gossip. Loud and clear.
And, since all of THEIR proofs of the relationship on SM are either deleted (Morleys' acct) or Zech doesn't have Twitter acct anymore, it's just hearsay. Kizo2703 (talk) 18:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, I am suspicious about your reasoning since you are a single-purpose account, as you admitted yourself on April 6. You have also made strange legal threats in the past as well. Also your argument is illogical since Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, which is still active, and Morley still has a Twitter account. So I wouldn't call it "hearsay". Historyday01 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, was expecting this, but unfortunately for you, have I done something NOTRIGHT until now? Because I'm not the one who used questionable sources. I just sent screenshots of your texts. Did anything happened to anyone yet?
Zech's accusations were posted on her Instagram, but NO SINGLE POST they were in relationship. Same goes for Morley's Twitter account - no single post about them. Only rumors on third party accts. Sorry.
As of for me being a single-purpose account, yes, on this, my free time account. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, since you cleaned up Morley's site, do as you wish, as long as you don't touch it ever again.
However, given that we concluded that its gossip we're talking about, it should be deleted everywhere. Kizo2703 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, another strange threat from you, which is per usual, considering you ARE a single-purpose account, falling in line with what is stated at WP:SPA. Who is this "we" you are talking about? Again, your argument is strange as it implies that people never delete posts from their social media accounts, even though people regularly cull their feeds. In any case, I don't expect any rational argument from you on this topic. Historyday01 (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment for closer: When closing this, if it is decided to not include these accusations of abuse in either article, could you note whether we should use the sources "The 100' Star Bob Morley Accused of Abusive Behavior" & "'The 100's' Bob Morley accused of abuse" even if we are removing the abuse allegations. I tried to remove them from page because of redundancy of her bisexuality being "confirmed" by media, but it was put back in with an explanation(on my usertalk page) that more media reporting is needed media reporting is better to confirm her bisexuality. I don't see the point of having a content/BLP discussion on my talk page, so I have asked for it to be done here on this noticeboard or on Arryn's talk page. For reference the linked article don't really report on her bisexuality so much as just quote her statement of Morley's alleged reaction to her bisexuality. Editngwiki (talk · contribs), brought up several examples of her bisexualities earlier in this discussion, but Historyday01 (talk · contribs) says it's better to use media reporting. There are examples of Zech stating it herself such as in the one Youtube Video. I say the quote that is already in article describer herself as "a bisexual" was enough, and if we need more(which I don't think we do) the youtube clip of her saying she is bisexual could be a second reference. I don't have an issue of mentioning her bisexuality, but I don't see point of removing the abuse allegation, but putting in multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title, when it is completely unnecessary. WikiVirusC(talk) 16:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sigh. The YouTube videos mentioned by Editngwiki are nice, but I just don't believe they are sufficient on their own. If there were BETTER sources, I'd be more than happy to use them in the article, but the the articles on and The Daily Dot seem to be the best sources on the topic. Adding more links and sources about someone's sexuality is BETTER than having less. Not sure how you don't get that. I am generally wary of using YouTube videos as sources and only use them, personally, as sparingly as possible. In some cases, where there are YouTube interviews, its fine, but I'm just not sure about those YouTube videos, as those moments are buried within the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" (its over an hour long), "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" (its over 50 minutes long), "RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" (its over 41 minutes long), "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" (its over 1 hour and 43 minutes long). Is citing those long videos going to help users? I would say not, as they may have to muddle through a lot to get to what is cited in the text. I would argue the same goes for Zech's former Tumblr, a reblogged post and two screenshots from said blog here and here. I do not understand, for the life of me why any of those sources would be better than the articles in and The Daily Dot. The inclusion of such links to YouTube and Tumblr would, as I understand it, run afoul of WP:BLPSPS and WP:ABOUTSELF, at minimum.
    Otherwise, I've observed some people try and add in YouTubers as a reliable source to some pages and began a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard back in July 2022 stating that YouTubers aren't usually a reliable source. So, I am very familiar with people using YouTube as a source. As for the rest of your comment, I felt that your edits on the page were renegade edits since the standard for sourcing someone's stated sexuality, from my understanding, is lower than the reported accusations, which are the reason this discussion began in the first place. I would NOT say the additional sources are redundant, but just provide more information on her bisexuality. I never said that "more media reporting is needed to confirm her bisexuality", although I admittedly did cause some confusion by using words like "support" and "proof". Instead, I said "media reporting ALWAYS helps in these cases [of someone stating their sexuality], rather than just interviews", which I still believe. I am glad to hear that you don't see "an issue of mentioning her bisexuality", and know there is an issue with having "multiple sources that literally have the abuse allegations in title", depending on the consensus here. Honestly, if I was to use social media as a source for Zech's bisexuality, it would be a challenge since Zech has rarely talked about her social media, and am not sure if citing the Instagram post which had her accusations against Morley would be any better than the current articles cited. Even worse, Zech no longer has a Twitter account, so what social media posts could you even cite?
    Trying to look through her tweets to find the "right one" which states she is bisexual would probably be a fool's errand to be honest. I even found one Tweet in which she reportedly said she is bisexual (if the Google search which said the text stated "'m bisexual I still cross my legs though when I sit but I love women and men and I find women of all types far more attractive then most men" had any validity) but it isn't even in the Wayback Machine or, sadly. For many other people, it is relatively easy to find information about their sexuality. For Zech, it is a challenge as she seems to rarely post about being bisexual, and she no longer has a Twitter account (where people usually post these types of things, or at least they used to). Just thought I'd put this all out there for the record, as I'd say that WikiVirusC's arguments are wrongheaded in more ways than one. I will say that I've learned from this discussion to be even more wary about adding in "controversial" things to bio pages and will either not add those things in the future, or go out of my way to begin a discussion on said inclusion, so a discussion like this never occurs again. I am hopeful that the closing of this discussion will hold off any people vandalizing the pages of Zech and Morley as well. Historyday01 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Youtube or Youtubers wouldn't be the source, the source would be Arryn herself. The redundancy wasn't the source(s), it was the mentioning her saying she was bisexual twice. Anyways this isn't an issue about her sexuality or the sourcing I am bringing up, its a BLP issue about the accusations against Morley. WikiVirusC(talk) 17:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. I still feel like citing the Instagram post would have the same problem, as it could have the abuse accusations in the title. However, in theory, I suppose you could word the title of the Instagram post, using Template:Cite Instagram, to ONLY talk about her bisexuality (as writing the entire title of all of Zech's accusations in the title would obviously make the title far too long to be useful to anyone). Even so, I am very wary about citing the YouTube videos, and even more about the Tumblr (which has been deactivated). I mean, even WP:RSPSS states in their summary that "most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all", adding that "content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. However, many YouTube videos from unofficial accounts are copyright violations and should not be linked from Wikipedia". Furthermore, WP:YOUTUBE states that "many YouTube videos...are copyright violations and should not be linked...links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis" and WP:VIDEOLINK says that video links "must abide by various policies and guidelines" and be "carefully and individually evaluated for inclusion." Only the "RT Podcast: Ep. 221" video would fulfill that standard, as the "RWBY Voice Cast Panel - C2E2 2020" video was uploaded byFandom Spotlite which is not a verified official account, with the same being the case for the "RWBY Live Stream with Lindsay Jones, Kara Eberle, Barbara Dunkelman, & Arryn Zech" and RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Blake, and Yang) Cast Q&A Montreal Comiccon 2018 Full Panel" videos, neither of which have verified accounts. As a reminder, for YouTube verified accounts it is affirmed that such channels are authentic and complete. Now, that doesn't mean that all the videos are great, and people/organizations which are notoriously awful could be verified, but it is something to keep in mind.
In the past, I used to be gung-ho about citing self-published sources and got angry when they got removed, but I've learned over the years that self-published sources should be used very sparingly. Otherwise, I am glad to hear that you don't have an issue with "her sexuality or the sourcing". While saying all of this, I still personally don't see an issue with citing the Daily Dot or articles, with a caveat that if the consensus does lean in favor of removal (which it seems it is), then perhaps there could be some hidden text (on Zech and Morley's pages) noting to not re-add the accusation and citing this discussion or something, right near the article(s) cited. The same could be the case if the Instagram post by Zech is cited instead. I suppose, in retrospect, I am somewhat glad this was added to this discussion, but on the other hand, I feel that these discussions of reliability of sources might be better suited for WP:RSN, just saying.Historyday01 (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Include allegations, per comment in below section. (No one seemed to want to continue the discussion, so changing my suggestion for continuation to an include !vote)--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Argument for continuation of this discussion[edit]

Comment: I think I'm now very much in the minority, but I do want to make an argument that more discussion should be had here.

  • As I understand, Zech self-published psychological-abuse accusations against Morley via Twitter and Instagram. A few mid-tier reliable sources picked those allegations up, including the Daily Dot [5], Girlfriend (magazine) [6], Distractify [7], and a few sources I haven't heard of, like DailyPlanet [8] (which included discussion of what appeared to be a response by Taylor, Zech's wife) and The Tempest [9]. Zech later deleted her self-published claims her Twitter, but her claims are still on her Instagram account. I understand there are a few side issues, like whether Zech also accused Morley's now-wife of abuse/an affair, but, as I see it, the abuse allegations are the crux, no? The key question is whether those allegations should be included.

I'm a little lost on the policy arguments. I seeWP:V mentioned ... but what, exactly, is the thing that needs to be verified—(1) that Zech tweeted/instagrammed what the third-party sources say she did, or (2) the alleged abuse itself? Given that many—most?—people are mostly talking about the reliability of the sources, it seems like the key issue is the former ...? Or, to put it as a question: If the New York Times had ran a short story simply reporting Zech's tweets, would the allegations, then, merit inclusion?

On the other hand, a few users seem to be suggesting it's the alleged abuse that has to be verified. User:Editngwiki, for example, discredits "Zech's claims about ... verbal/emotional abuse" because they "were never accompanied by any proof, screenshots, mention of a formal report or anything". They point to Wikipedia:Claims require specific evidence, which is an essay about the claims Wikipedia editors make against one another ... so, not quite apt, and, I think, not an accurate description of how WP handles allegations. User: Kizo2703, relatedly, says the allegations are hearsay because Zech deleted her original tweets ... but that can't be relevant. Courts might reject hearsay, but Wikipedia prefers it—that's why we prefer secondary sources to primary sources.

I think this is a complicated issue worthy of more and—due respect to the participants (who have had to discuss several different aspects of this)—more focused discussion. Part of me would obviously prefer a stronger source—because more reporting than "picked up her tweets/instagram" would be nice. At the same time, ... while I'm not coming out one way or another just yet (I think I need to read the opinions of some more editors), I actually think WP:PUBLICFIGURE might advise in favor of inclusion? If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article Notice that inquiry says we should focus on the documentation of the allegation, not documentation related to the underlying charge. Maybe it's a close call, but I don't see any reason to think the various sources just copied each other—the Daily Dot relied on Zech's twitter (and took screenshots of the note attached to her tweet), while Girlfriend magazine relied on her Instagram, yet the quotations in the Girlfriend piece are present in the Daily Dot's screenshots. (And of course, when several mid-tier reliable sources report the same thing ... that surely adds to the strength of their reliability.) That said, one semi-confusing aspect of WP:PUBLICFIGURE is the term "notable"—as I've understood it, WP:NOTABLE doesn't usually apply to article content.--Jerome Frank Disciple 20:39, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hear what you are saying. I fully support keeping the accusations on each page (although I have come to accept that the consensus is on the opposite side, hence my recent comments accepting that reality). On the other hand, I also feel like this conversation is going in circles and going nowhere at this point, which is why, personally, I think a resolution would be better, even if it isn't the result I agree with. Zech didn't actually delete her claims, as they are still there on Instagram: However, her Twitter account has since been deactivated. In terms of the sources you point out, people have grumbled about Girlfriend Magazine (it was originally included in an earlier version of the text), and as noted above, but the strongest ones were Daily Dot,, and Den of Geek. There's also an article in The Music which says Zech and Morley were rumored to be in a relationship. As for Distractify, I thought that was a pretty unreliable, and it is a bit tricky for the DailyPlanet as Taylor doesn't specifically mention Taylor. with the article saying "Taylor never officially mentioned Zech’s statement but still managed to break her social media silence." That was an issue previously in this discussion as the aformentioned articles had said Zech was talking about Taylor, but she never specifically mentioned Taylor, only referring to a "girl". A little skeptical of The Tempest here as their about page says "page not found". I can, personally agree that WP:PUBLICFIGURE favors inclusion, but sadly I don't think many agree with that. And, personally, I'm a bit lost in the policy arguments too. All I can see is that people don't favor inclusion at the present time. And I'm not sure if the closer will say there is a consensus here or not, because the number of SPAs contributing complicates any possible determination of consensus in this discussion.Historyday01 (talk) 13:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the Music article really works—I think we should be centering on the abuse claims and, at least for now, not caring about just stating whether or not they were in a relationship—honestly I think the above discussion got a bit sidetracked on more minor issues that could be addressed separately. But I wonder if maybe this would be appropriate for an RFC.--Jerome Frank Disciple 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm fine with excluding the Music article, and only included it originally to support the assertion that Zech and Morley are in a relationship, but I admit that it isn't a great source for that. I also won't disagree that the above discussion probably did get a bit sidetracked on various issues. Some of that is likely my fault, but I was trying to make the best of a bad situation, as assumedly the consensus seemed against inclusion. However, I'm not sure if addressing the issues separately would be productive or having a RfC only because I am concerned that the discussion would be sidetracked by the same issues, as, likely, the same participants would be present, including some of the SPAs who contributed in this discussion. Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Doesn't seem like more discussion is going to happen, hoping we can get a closure from the request I previously made. WikiVirusC(talk) 19:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope so as well. I would like there to be a closure. It seemed that Jerome Frank Disciple wanted to continue this discussion, but has made no additional comments since May 5th. Historyday01 (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, no one else seemed to want to participate in the discussion, so alas. I'll update my comment to a !vote--Jerome Frank Disciple 13:36, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Natalia Janoszek and an alleged forged resume[edit]

This issue came to my attention from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natalia Janoszek. To the best of my understanding, there is a controversy currently in Poland where an investigative reporter (Krzysztof Stanowski) has alleged that actress Natalia Janoszek's resume was mostly faked/exaggerated. I am unsure of what to make of our article's current state (as in what is alleged to be fiction), so I thought it best to bring here. Pinging User:Marcelus and User:Sławobóg who brought this to my attention from the AfD. Curbon7 (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Block (New Mexico Politician)[edit]

The source on 10 is not a legitimate news outlet and is an op-ed, not a news source: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed that ref, as well as the associated content and its other two refs that didn't support the content. Schazjmd (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chloé Dygert [Chloé Dygert][edit]

[Chloé Dygert] Chloé Dygert (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The Information presented in the personal life section is defamation. Chloé Dygert herself has asked for this to be removed as to she receives a lot of online heckling from people trying to stop her career from progressing, posting false stories from little to no credit 3rd rate websites docking her for her political beliefs. The entire personal life section on her Wiki basically says nothing good about her what so ever, Its all political nonsense and it's saddening. Could we please get this changed and or removed. Thank you.

Defamation is, by definition, false. Are there specific statements of fact here which are being challenged for accuracy? Or is this more a question of these events not being the lens she'd prefer to be viewed through? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The last three sentences of that section are about a corporation publicly "slamming" and "calling out" a living person they're not connected to. That's marketing for brownie points, or posturing. The idea we should add that bit of corporate marketing to a person's BLP is uniquely obnoxious. DFlhb (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not connected to? They're the sponsor of the team she's on. Schazjmd (talk) 23:47, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which is true (as is made clear in the source), but is not mentioned in our article section, which makes the import less than clear. If the material is to stay (and I think it should in some form), then such a link should be noted. I do actually have more concern with first sentence on that paragraph, as it is sourced to her sponsor Red Bull, a non-independent and not-presumably-reliable source. I have raised that issue on the Talk page.-- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd missed it when skimming the source. But it's still "woke-washing" advertising typical of 2020, when corps issued 'strong statements' that didn't put their money where their mouth is (like dropping the team) except for gestures (hiring a "diversity consultant"). That same year they moved to Arkensas, a pro-discrimination state, and have continued to expand their presence there as more anti-LGBT laws were passed. Rapha is a self-serving unusable source, whether quoted by VeloNews or not. Surely we have independent sources criticizing her? DFlhb (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Your prior complaint was that we were using criticism from someone the subject is "not connected to", and now that you see the connection, the problem is that they aren't an independant source? No matter if you find alll such criticism to be "woke-washing", "posturing", seeking "brownie points", or whatever, facing public criticism from a sponsor, the very folks trying to get positive publicity off of your efforts, is significant, and the third party coverage of it suggests that inclusion is due. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since when is the Red Bull website a RS to put WP:WEIGHT on though?[10] Seems like coatracking to find something seemingly consistent with the other sentences that were actually supported by RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stewart Rhodes[edit]

I would like some eyes to take a peek, as subject was just in the news. I cleaned up the lead, taking WP:WEIGHT into consideration. But I was most concerned about source abuse. The article was labeling him a domestic terrorist because the RS quoted a judge saying that. I’m sure you can understand the distinction. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artificial Nagger (talkcontribs) 07:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for tag review[edit]

Looking at talk page discussion I tagged an article Anirudh Devgan for COI and notability. I wish some one help cross check/ review this tagging is appropriate enough to be on safer side. Bookku (talk) 10:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is People (magazine) a reliable source?[edit]

I reverted a change in a BLP because its only source was People (magazine). This has been challenged (here) and I now don’t know how solid the ground is that I was standing on.

  1. would one ever expect the article about a source to discuss its reliability as far as WP is concerned?
  2. WP:BLPRS makes particular note of tabloids which I guess excludes People. But surely that doesn’t imply reliability?

What’s the best way forward here? Thanks, Nick Levine (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People has been repeatedly judged a reliable source, as shown at WP:RSNP, although there is caution about using it for contentious claims. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People is listed as generally reliable at WP:RSPS. Its listing is based on the RfC from 2013[11] closed as People magazine can be a reliable source in BLPs. [...] the magazine should not be used for contentious claims. Whether it's reliable for the edit you reverted depends on the nature of the content it was supporting. (I was typing while NatGertler had already answered, thus the duplicated information.) Schazjmd (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, just found it. I'd consider People a reliable source for a celebrity wedding. It's what they do. Schazjmd (talk) 22:50, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the guidance. Nick Levine (talk) 06:18, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the celebrity married an astrophysicist, People is a reliable source for the wedding details, but not for the details of the physicist's research. Context matters. Cullen328 (talk) 06:52, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So People is expert when it comes to stars, but not to the stars that an expert on stars is expert in? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Tim Noakes[edit]

Tim Noakes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Tim Noakes, the subject of this BLP, responded to published criticism from a (non-expert) critic, but two editors are reverting the subject's response as undue weight. They have also claimed that the subject's own self-published comments are not allowed, which goes against BLP policy. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit[12] is using a self-published site to make an attack on a third-party individual and calling their qualifications, expertise and good character into question. That is the very definition of how self-published sources MUST NOT be used on Wikipedia. You have done similar on that article's Talk page including allegations of stalking (which is a criminal offence in South Africa). Don't do this. Bon courage (talk) 06:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How ironic. The 3rd party in question has done exactly that to Noakes, calling him (falsely) and antivaxxer, paranoid, and more (in fact he said, of Noakes' book: " extraordinarily heady mix of conspiracy theory, bad science, bad writing, and persecution complex"). What's good for the goose, etc. The allegations of stalking come from Noakes himself, using a different formulation of words. You also neglected to point out that the edit you cite has other sources beyond a self-published site. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Referring to the vitriolic quote I provided above, made by the 3rd party in question, it appears to be in breech of WP:BLPBALANCE where it is stated that Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Hmmm. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe, but an "author disagrees with negative book review" piece is hardly the kind of secondary, independent sourcing we should be using. Especially for medical misinformation, Wikipedia has a duty to be clear what the mainstream view is, and should be careful about not amplifying character assassinations and allegations of criminality, even more especially if those do not appear in RS. Bon courage (talk) 06:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You have gotta be kidding! McAlpine made a truly vicious attack on Noakes, one that is specifically discouraged by WP:BLPBALANCE, yet you would insist on publishing the vitriol and denying Noakes a response? This is laughable. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess crap books get negative reviews all the time. All Wikipedia can do it report on that. I'd leave any "vicious attacks" out of it. Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And we publish comments from vitriolic "reviews" from long-term enemies of the BLP subject, enemies with an ax to grind (long histry of attacks on social media for instance), and no expertise in the subject area, and then deny the subject a response? GTFO. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see Noakes responded in the same outlet (so this isn't just self-published). From what I can see the right approach might be something like - include Noakes denial (WP:BLP says we should include denials), but do not include any strong claims about living people he makes in that denial (since I think we'd need better sourcing for that), and do not give significant weight to any WP:FRINGE claims in his denial (if there are any). I also think the criticism of Noakes could be worded better so it has more of an WP:IMPARTIAL tone (and complies with WP:BLPBALANCE). I have not looked at this in depth, so the approach I'm suggesting may not be quite right.
Finally, is the original source actually good enough to be including this in a WP:BLP in the first place? Is Juta medical brief (the "digital clubbing" section) a good source, and does Alastair McAlpine have subject matter expertise? Tristario (talk) 07:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thoughtful response with excellent points raised, thank you. I would agree to your proposed edits. I will look into Juta medical brief. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The website is a news aggregator and it was recently bought by a South African publishing company called Juta. It also publishes opinion pieces. I would not class it as a quality RS. Ratel 🌼 (talk)
This is correct? We need strong sourcing to describe someone as writing an extraordinarily heady mix of conspiracy theory, bad science, bad writing, and persecution complex in a WP:BLP. We don't have to actually include anything about this book in the biography if we don't have solid sourcing. --Tristario (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What is Noakes "denying"? WP:DENIAL the relevant BLP text is about allegations and incidents. Bon courage (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC); amended 17:13, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
He calls Noakes' book an extraordinarily heady mix of conspiracy theory, bad science, bad writing, and persecution complex. I think most people would consider that to be an allegation. Tristario (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's describing a book not making an allegation. I would oppose any attempt to stretch BLP to give authors a "right of reply" to bad book reviews. Where would it end. Would we then have to include McAlpine's response to Noakes' response? Bon courage (talk) 07:34, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I beg your pardon: he is implying that Noakes is a bad scientist, a conspiracy theorist and paranoid. There is no other possible interpretation. He is quite explicit about it: "The same issues that have plagued Noakes’ recent career, plague the book." Ratel 🌼 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, or something along those lines. I understand the desire to rebut WP:FRINGE ideas and not give them credence on wikipedia. But, we still need to adhere to the spirit of WP:BLP, and we need to be careful, especially with claims as strong as these. That goes for any claims about McAlpine too, of course Tristario (talk) 07:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now, possibly one thing that could be done is we could tone down the review from McAlpine, and that may eliminate the need to include a denial. Tristario (talk) 07:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 08:00, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note, in regards to some of your recent edits to the article - if you're using a self published source for a denial I don't think you should give it much weight, and you shouldn't use it for claims about third parties beyond the denial itself (a footnote in WP:BLPSELFPUB carries a clarification about this). And not everything needs a denial (either because we can include a general denial for multiple things, or not everything counts as an "allegation or incident") Tristario (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a BLP is accused of very serious misdemeanours, such as being an antivaxxer or a supporter of fringe treatments, and especially as a doctor, he is most entitled to a defence from his own mouth. There is no problem with that at all. I don't believe I have exceeded the "denial itself" anywhere, or not substantially, but I do not object to your modifications. Considering that most of the criticisms are based on his idle tweets on off-career topics, the questions should be asked if any of them, other than the HPCSA issue, should be there in the first place.Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:03, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need to manage a careful act of adhering to WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE simultaneously. I agree that if there's a serious allegation against him and he denies it, we should include it. While also adhering to all those policies/guidelines Tristario (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
what "serious allegation" is on Wikipedia? In general, cranks get their crank outputs criticised in the real world. I would object to re-interpreting BLP to mean that when fringe writings are criticised, the crank gets some sort of "right of reply" as that's right into WP:FALSEBALANCE territory. And avoiding that that is not negotiable. Bon courage (talk) 11:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLP is a policy, and we need to take it seriously, even when dealing with people that spread fringe claims. WP:BLP also applies to talk pages. I'm not talking about a false balance between mainstream and fringe views. I'm talking about an allegation like if someone is accused of doing something, and that person denies it, we generally need to include that denial. We also need to balance that with policies like WP:FRINGE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's not a simple thing to do, and it's done on a case by case basis. Tristario (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, we "generally" don't, not if the denial is "unduly self-serving". There's no presumption in policy that including a denial is the default course of action which we have to argue our way out of. XOR'easter (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLP If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. And a footnote in WP:BLPSELFPUB is clear that applies to self published sources too. All denials are self-serving of course. Tristario (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The example there (a politician engaged in an affair) does not seem even broadly comparable with the one here (a book written by the subject is bad in several ways). Especially the context of the quoted sentence (it's in a section titled "Presumption in favor of privacy", subsection "Public figures") is incompatible with the present case. --JBL (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we've resolved how we're including that review of the book now (this conversation turned into a general conversation, rather than about that specific case). Tristario (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An "implication" is not an "allegation". Read it how you will, but don't think Wikipedia must follow. Bon courage (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, sensible approach with which I largely agree. Note: I have modified the original contentious content with what I hope will be a consensus edit, reducing McAlpine's quote and referring as briefly as possible to the rebuttal. For balance, I have also included a positive review by another medical specialist. I trust this resolves the issues at hand. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think "Paediatrician Alastair McAlpine criticised the book as "bad science" in a review, to which Noakes responded." is good, although I removed the cardiologist review since it was self published Tristario (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed he cardiologist review a second time referencing this comment. jps (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure if the review was self-published in "FoodStuff South Africa", but either way that's not a good enough source for this Tristario (talk) 10:58, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question: regarding the repeatedly inserted claim about Noakes removing 'entire food groups', can someone please tell me what food groups are referred to here? AFAIK no food groups are removed. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word "entire" was removed to conform to the source. jps (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I repeat, what food groups are removed? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The diet's main premise is one that drastically reduces the consumption of carbohydrates. While it is not an "entire" removal, it is pretty obvious from the sources and our own article that this is what is being referred to. Please exercise WP:COMMONSENSE. jps (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong. He advocates 50-70 carbs a day [13], which is not a "removal of a food group". Do you even know what a food group is, talking about common sense? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The recommended intake of carbohydrates per day is between 225 and 325 grams. jps (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's the official recommendation that has made obesity into a global crisis. You call that success? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
see WP:NOTFORUM. I think the current wording is fine, I think it's clear from the earlier part of that paragraph where it says "low-carbohydrate" that it's not talking about excluding literally all carbohydrates Tristario (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just some context here. The primary source Ratel was citing was from 2012 and is outdated. These sources are not reliable either as they are personal interviews, but it should be noted that Tim Noakes is now more extreme with his dietary views as he promotes the carnivore diet and tells people not to eat carbs or vegetables at all [14], [15]. His views are very much on the extreme side, not taken seriously by dietitians and nutritional scientists. Per below, I believe the the Fringe noticeboard is the correct place to discuss this. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On a more rational note, rather than Youtube videos, would you object to using his recent books as sources for what he advocates?Ratel 🌼 (talk) 01:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously. We don't put fringe health stuff in Wikipedia and are required to contextualize it mainstream, reliable sources. Bon courage (talk) 01:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this is correct. We need to be careful about putting fringe health ideas on wikipedia in an uncontextualized manner. Tristario (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a discussion also taking place about this article at WP:FTN. There is some confusion as to whether these two discussions should be collapsed into one or if they should be kept separate. This is a WP:FRINGEBLP, so YMMV. jps (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lana Rhoades[edit]

There is back and forth at Lana Rhoades, an American porn star, with issues of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPGOSSIP. The BLPNAME issue is whether the birth name should be published[16] while WP:BLPGOSSIP issue is whether she had a son with some undisclosed NBA player.[17][18] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:54, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also removed, since it doesnt improve the article by stating the unnamed fathers profession, and cannot be proven. The cited source isn't a reliable source as far as I can tell, either.
As for the name, I am unsure how that one would work. I know her name has been released recently, but along with most adult performers, that doesn't mean much since every day sources release their public names as soon as they find them, and if ever there was a profession where someone values their privacy and tries to shield their private information from getting out, I would say it's the adult entertainment business.
Awshort (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why exactly is the magazine Semana not a reliable source? Decades old magazine, a known history of top level journalism, and a large number of awards over the years for its work. SilverserenC 00:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article was deleted many times, never should have been allowed to come back from draftspace. Zaathras (talk) 23:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are a number of reliable sources covering her and her life over years. Just because you don't like the subject matter doesn't make her non-notable. SilverserenC 00:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there any indication that the birth name is contentious? Is her birth name something she doesn't want known? Otherwise, why wouldn't it be included? As for her son, she's the one that made the statement herself openly about her son and his father. Why wouldn't the general statement of hers, as attributed to her, be included? SilverserenC 00:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her birth name is in the subtitle of the Playboy article. That's the one source that's been completed agreed upon being a RS. I don't understand why it's contentious either. Mbdfar (talk)
Playboy may be reliable for their serious "articles" but not the text that accompanies their layouts which tend to be promotional.[19] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see the relevance of that linked discussion. What part of your statement does it support? Mbdfar (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bios that accompany the paid photoshoots are not independent or reliable. Several editors commented on that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mbdfar: perhaps the linked discussion is not the best discussion to illustrate the issue. However, I would interpret that Playboy thing as a sub-headline which means it's not reliable per WP:HEADLINES i.e. part of WP:RS. It doesn't matter if it's Playboy or the New York Times; or if it's on a living person's real name or whether the sky is blue. Nil Einne (talk) 11:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I remember reading a news article years ago (can't find it now) which was all about the fact that people adding the real names of pornographic actresses to Wikipedia (often poorly sourced) resulted in their real-life harassment. For that reason, there should be serious discretion regarding the inclusion of their real names unless they are very widely known. As for the father of the child allegedly being an NBA player, meh. It feels like trivia, but I wouldn't strongly object to its inclusion either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with these concerns Tristario (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've managed to find the article again, it was published in 2019 in Jezebel "Wikipedia Exposes Porn Performers to Stalking, Harassment—And Visits From CPS" . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:BLPNAME When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. WP:BLPPRIVACY With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.
Are these conditions met? Tristario (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Her real name is openly mentioned at the beginning of a number of reliable sources covering her going back years. Such as this, this, this, this, and this, to name a few. I also see no evidence of her concealing it or not wanting it known, so this doesn't appear to be a BLP issue on that front. SilverserenC 01:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I just looked up, the vast majority of sources that discuss her don't use her real name. There are a few here and there that use it (mostly unreliable). I think I would rather have some clear indication that she would not object to her real name being publicly well known Tristario (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you explain which of the sources I linked would be unreliable? They're all well known newspapers and magazines. SilverserenC 01:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wasn't referring specifically to your sources, I was referring to the sources in my own review, although the WP:DAILYSTAR is unreliable. It's not just a question of if we have a reliable source, but whether the privacy considerations in the policy are met, which is a higher hurdle. I think we'd need it to either be clearly widely disseminated (which from my own review it doesn't appear to be) or to clearly be able to tell she wouldn't object to its inclusion. Tristario (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'm still a little confused. So the majority of sources you looked at, which you describe as unreliable, didn't mention her real name. But the multiple reliable sources I presented did use her real name. Shouldn't the latter be more relevant than the former? SilverserenC 01:50, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant most of the sources I saw that did mention her real name were unreliable. Besides that, in english-language sources at least, it seemed the vast majority did not mention her real name. So I don't think it meets the standard of "widely disseminated" that we would want to have here. Tristario (talk) 01:56, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you give some examples of the reliable ones you were looking at? I've found that she's covered far more in Spanish language sources than English ones. And the article currently reflects that. SilverserenC 02:00, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we're mainly basing the conclusion that an American person's (who speaks english) real name is widely disseminated on its inclusion in spanish language sources then I don't think that meets the standard of "widely disseminated" we're looking for. Most of the sources I saw were unreliable, I'd have to go through them and figure out which are or aren't reliable. Tristario (talk) 02:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Language of sources is irrelevant to practically any considerations we made in regards to articles. Non-English sources are the equivalent to English ones for anything involving policy, including BLPNAME. SilverserenC 02:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
per WP:RSUE we do actually prefer english-language sources. We need to take these privacy considerations seriously. Her name is not widely disseminated as far as I can see. Obviously if it were we'd also expect to see that reflected in english lanuage sources. Tristario (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going by WP:BLPNAME, does not including the name detract from the article? In my opinion, no.
Going a step further into WP:BLPPRIVACY, can it be infered that she doesn't object to her real name being public? In my opinion, no. She still goes by Lana Rhoades, and even after retiring from her previous profession, she is using that title. She doesn't refer to herself by her real name, that I could find, on her podcast or in interviews. Other than a casual mention in the Playboy article, I can find nothing showing that she wants it out there.
I also see no evidence of her concealing it or not wanting it known, so this doesn't appear to be a BLP issue on that front. The fact that she herself hasn't mentioned it, chosen to go by it in appearences or interviews, or went by her birth name as opposed to her 'professional name' should give some indication that she does not want it known.
Back to my original point - how can it be reasonably determined that she has no objections to her name being out there, and why should it be included in the article? Simply stating that it was in newspapers from different countries answers neither of those things. Regarding the question you asked about why shouldn't it be listed what her childs fathers profession is, I tend to go with WP:ONUS - While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. It comes off as a tidbit of trivia which does absolutely nothing to improve the article in my eyes, since it wouldn't matter if the guy was an astronaut or a race car driver, since he is unknown and although it is stated by the source themself, it cannot be verified as being true/false on what job he has.
Awshort (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per WP:RSUE, when they are available and of equal quality and relevance. As you've repeatedly pointed out, English language coverage of her is almost entirely unreliable sources, with Playboy being one of the few exceptions (and which does state her real name). Meanwhile, the reliable sources in Spanish use her real name rather widely in general. SilverserenC 02:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether the sources are foreign matters to me in terms of assigning weight on a privacy issue to an American subject whose popularity/notability is derived from her American work. American RS do not tend to cover the subject of pornography because of its sensationalist nature, and it is inappropriate to use the more relaxed standards of media outside of the United States to uhh backdoor this content. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The fact that foreign language sources are more likely to be willing to cover subjects like pornography makes them have "relaxed standards", ie worse journalistic standards? Or what are you saying here? Because the fact that they cover porn actors doesn't make them worse in any way, nor less reliable, nor less journalistic in their coverage. SilverserenC 02:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources foreign to the subject (with certain exceptions) should be given less WP:WEIGHT and is not a comment on whether the source is reliable in terms of its fact-checking.Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is that stated anywhere in policy? RSUE merely says that when sources of equal quality and relevance exist, we should prefer to use the English one as the reference so our readers can more easily read it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with WEIGHT or anything else. SilverserenC 03:12, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's how I interpret weight with respect to BLPPRIVACY/BLPNAME. No, I don't believe these foreign sources are of equal relevance to the subject. For example, the La Semana[20] the foreign source that was used as the backdoor citation to the NBA player issue is a straight translation of a WP:NYPOST article without credit.[21] Meanwhile, this "El Universal" article[22] that was cited in the article is based off of the Daily Star.[23] This La Republica article cited[24] is based on another Daily Star article.[25] This "La Nacion" article cited[26] is based off of this Daily Star article[27]. This La Nacion cited article[28] is derived from this American article[29] Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would hesitate to cite any article, whether in English or not, that amounts to a rehash of a WP:DAILYSTAR article. The contents of such sources are probably WP:UNDUE and WP:EXCEPTIONAL, especially if we're using the equal quality and relevance standard. I've looked at a couple of the cited articles (La Nación and El Universal) and they don't seem to contain any new reporting or analysis; they're basically churnalism from a deprecated tabloid. I would definitely not include a subject's actual name based solely on such sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So should content sourced to these rehashes be removed since they are not intellectually independent from the Daily Star? It feels like source washing to keep them in. Every foreign article here that is not attributed to an author is suspected to be derived, and I'm amazed that these supposedly reputable foreign sources would not properly attribute their articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would rather not use articles that are just rehashed from unreliable sources. We want to have solid sourcing for BLPs. And this seems questionable Tristario (talk) 12:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Draft:Joanna Marcenal case[edit]

I moved Draft:Joanna Marcenal case to draft space because I have serious concerns about claims of who was responsible for which crime, which don't seem to be supported by an actual conviction (no actual verdict is included in the article, and a source from 2020 indicates that at that time, no conclusion was reached[30]). For example, a statement like "His stepmother was free, although she is also responsible for crimes for also having custody of the victim and having control of the situation." sourced to this apparently unrelated article, doesn't seem to be acceptable under our BLP policies. I don't know if the mass of such issues warrant deletion or just thorough cleaning, but I don't think it should be kept as is. Fram (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obviously a machine translation of the Portuguese article. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, that explains some sources not working. Even more reason to keep it out of the mainspace. Fram (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the creator's history, he has been doing a lot of this. I'm not sure what his command of English is; he seems to respond only in Portuguese. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spicy just blocked him over this language issue and the resulting articles, so it probably won't happen again! Fram (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A promotional, poorly sourced and WP:COI inflected vehicle going back many years. Recent edits by several WP:SPA accounts have provided limited improvement. More eyes and hands needed. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charles Tex Watson,[edit]

I was reading about the Tate Labianca murders and noticed in this entry about Charles Tex Watson, that it failed to include Leslie Van Houten as one of the murderers of the Labianca's. I think it a major error not to include the name of one of the murderers in one of the most infamous murders in the US in the 20th Century. Someone should add Van Houten's name to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a content issue rather than a BLP policy issue, and it better discussed at Talk:Tex Watson. I note that the articles on Leslie van Houten and the Tate–LaBianca murders both discuss her involvement. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This person seems to be primarily notable for being accused of terrorism as part of the Tarnac Nine (it seems he was later acquitted). I think this is a WP:BLP1E violation and relevant information (such as about his arrest) should be merged to the article about the Tarnac Nine. I looked at his French Wikipedia article and it contains almost the exact same information. But I am not sure what to do in a case like this and figured I would bring it to users here in case anyone else has a different read on it. Thanks. postleft ✍ (Arugula) ☞ say hello! 02:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More eyes required at Till Lindemann[edit]

Owing to recent allegations that have been made online there is some ongoing back-and-forth at Till Lindemann. Please see discussion on talk page here: Talk:Till_Lindemann#The_Sexual_Assault_allegations_against_Till_Lindemann_are_all_over_the_German_Press. — Czello (music) 10:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]