Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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

Valentin Katasonov[edit]

I looked into this article because it referenced Michel Chossudovsky's "", calling it a "Canadian information resource", which is a bit of a stretch, as you'll see from the article on Chossudovsky.

The main issue seems to be, though, that the article relies heavily on affiliated sources, and the only mainstream sources (e.g. the US State Department report) barely rise above the level of namechecks.

It is clear that Katasonov is a conspiracy theorist and Russian state propaganda conduit, but it is not clear whether he is a notable one (in the Wikipedia sense - State clearly think he is), and I don't think it would be possible to tell without a good working knowledge of Russian since there are very few reliable English language sources that mention him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 10:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a good question. Should he have an article on Wikipedia if there are no independent RS naming him? The State Department document could be considered WP:BLPPRIMARY Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Paul Frampton[edit]

The purpose of writing/editing is to raise concerns about the Wikipedia page/profile of Paul Frampton (PF) (the Profile).

There are elements of the Profile which should not form part of it, being a Biography of a Living Person (BLP), in accordance with the policies which are more particularly set out below to assist.

The objectionable content is that contained under the heading ‘Drug Smuggling Conviction’ (the Section). The concern is that it is not relevant to the Profile nor is it in in accordance with Wikipedia’s rules/policy surrounding BLPs.

There seems to have been previous comments on this subject with conflicting views. Those who believe that it should remain do so on the grounds that it is fact and reportage of the truth. Although that may (arguably) be correct in part, that appears to be the incorrect test to apply when determining if the Section should or can remain in the Profile as a BLP.

Wikipedia’s policy on BLPs (the Policy) states:

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.”

Those who may be interested in PF’s work are only solely and exclusively interested in his professional accomplishments as a physicist. The only reason to involve the Section is to be sensationalist.

This is further evidenced, for example, where the heading ‘Publications’ only refers to PF’s professional works and not to those relating to this minor incident in his life detailed in the Section. The correct reasoning for this is that the Section or the detail(s) of that event and therefore any publication(s) that followed bear(s) no relevance to a BLP.

The same entry would not be included in an encyclopaedia and there seems no reason why it should therefore exist on Wikipedia.

The Policy also states:

“Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion”

The Profile/Section states that PF had been diagnosed with a serious mental condition at the time of those events which one would expect to only limit his ability to deal with the proceedings against him at that time.

It is unclear what, if any, arrangements were made by the authorities or the court to accommodate PF’s condition or to assist in anyway. There is the very real concern that PF faced clear and obvious prejudices in that respect from the outset.

On that basis there is cause to question if the conviction can only be considered unsafe given the above and therefore the Section’s inclusion.

In furtherance, it would seem that the Profile falls under the definition of ‘People who are relatively unknown’. Although PF is renowned and respected within his own field, it is highly unlikely that those outside of that extremely limited sector would know of him.

That is of course an important point since the Policy states:

“Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability…Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care”

In accordance with the Policy and the definitions set out above, the Section should be removed leaving only the parts detailing PF’s professional achievements which go to the very heart of the reason the Profile exists.

It seems that the notability of PF has nothing to do with the events detailed within the Section but his professional accolades alone.

The Policy also places emphasis on material that may adversely affect a person’s reputation and that any such material needs to be treated with special care. Given the above points as to the unsafe nature of the conviction extreme caution must be exercised when considering if the Section has the ability to be included.

In the circumstances and for the reasons set out above, the Section should be removed in its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talkcontribs) 12:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable. -Roxy the dog. wooF 12:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The events related to the drug conviction absolutely affected his life and career (like, being fired and the subsequently lawsuit). And the sourcing, while mostly local, seems to be reliable, so there's no issue with this under BLPCRIME. --Masem (t) 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Yup, the cocaine stuff seems fine. Would likely be undue in the lede, as the self-sourced sentence about where he is "currently" (WP:RELTIME yuck) affiliated, is. Alexbrn (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
FYI, going by the talk page, the article has a long history of editors with an apparent COI making requests like this. Nil Einne (talk) 17:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The subject is a very distinguished theoretical physicist. The material about his drug conviction is well sourced and neutrally written. Such a bizarre series of events needs at least the space given. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2022 (UTC).

Apologies, I am unsure how to respond to the comments. Thank you for the responses - I do still disagree with the reasoning as to why you believe it should remain. There appears to be no dispute that Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person. On that basis the content must be limited to that material relevant to the person's notability - that is the test to be applied, not if it is bizarre, interesting, well sourced or neutral.

Although it may be considered a notable event (arguable) it is not relevant to Frampton's notability. For example, if he did not have the professional accolades would the profile exist with the drug smuggling conviction alone? The answer surely has to be no since that is a job of a tabloid, which Wikipedia is not. I do not believe that Wikipedia is a record of individuals with convictions either.

By way of further example and in order to support the point above, there is no profile for Lucy Wright - a British lady who admitted to smuggling 6kgs of cocaine out of Argentina, interesting the High Court (England) refused to extradite her on the basis of her Human Rights despite the fact she had admitted to the serious offence. The point is there is no profile for her for the same (if not more serious) and admitted criminal activity, which is right - Wikipedia is not a news outlet. As a side, this does also cast doubt on the Argentina legal system and its compliance with Human Rights.

The point therefore is not down to the notability of the event (as such), how it is written or as to its sourcing but as a relatively unknown person is this relevant to his notability as a particle theorist - surely that has to be no. Its inclusion is not compatible or in compliance with the BLP Policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 11:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If the only thing that could be discussed from quality sourcing related to Framptom was the drug-related crimes and litigation, we'd not have an article on him, most likely. Instead, Framptom, prior to anything with the drug stuff, was notable as an academic. That the drug litigation occurred and cost him his job at the end of the day builds on that. Now, if his crime was getting a speeding ticket and did not affect his career, of course we'd not even include that in his bio; that's trivial. --Masem (t) 19:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Masem is right - this subject looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, and as such is notable according to our guidelines; arguments that the article ought to be deleted on grounds of notability seem exceedingly unlikely to gain traction. We then pass onto the question of whether mention should be made of the conviction: given that it has been covered by multiple reliable sources, I can't think of any policy-based rationale for removing it; this information is squarely in the public domain, I don't see any BLP violation here. Girth Summit (blether) 01:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)≤
This is a notable person who, unfortunately, was convicted of a drug offense and served time in prison. There is no way under the sun that neutrally written, well-referenced content about this episode should be removed from his biography. It is an essential part of his life story. Cullen328 (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I appreciate that the conviction lead to him being dismissed from UNC, however, as the profile notes that decision was incorrect as determined by a Court of Law. If you are saying that it is the firing which is relevant to his notability as a particle theorist then surely it should be limited to that episode/court case alone - perhaps entitled wrongful termination of employment or simply employment. However, given that the firing was wrong should it be included? I'm not sure how that adds to him as a particle theorist though especially as a relatively unknown person. Should we be including the reasons for why he left each employee or each event in his life which may have had an impact upon him personally and therefore his career? obviously not. I'm also not convinced that you can say that the firing had any relation upon his theories, which are ultimately the reason for the profile - that is something only Frampton can answer.

We have established that the drug conviction element would not exist by itself, therefore as a profile of a relatively unknown person "only material relevant to the person's notability" can be included. Frampton is not notable as a drug smuggler, for being fired from UNC or any other reason save for as a particle theorist - therefore his career and theories/publications are the only material relevant to that notability.

You say you can't see any policy based rationale for removing it, I have given you exactly that - the wording of the BLP Policy is undeniably clear especially as to a relatively unknown person. Perhaps you can explain exactly why that policy doesn't apply. This is a genuine question, I have stated that I am not questioning the neutrality or sourcing of the section, but simply as to its compliance with the policy in relation to a relatively unknown person - no-one has yet dealt with that explicit point. EightfoldWay

This court of law that you mention without references Paul, was it the same court of law that convicted you, or a different court of law, in a different country, and a different case? -Roxy the dog. wooF 10:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Your first line is not clear, do you mean the court of law that references Paul or are you trying to infer that I am Paul? I assume you are attempting to say that I am Paul since you go on to say 'you', for the record and not that I believe I have to justify myself, I am not Paul if that is what you mean. I assume you mean the Court that ruled that UNC violated its own policies - it was a North Carolina Court (USA) as stated in the profile (and referenced). This seems to be the issue with this profile, any discussion concerning the inclusion of the drugs element runs off at a tangent. Ultimately my point is only to do with the BLP on a relatively unknown person - in its current form I can't see how it complies. To be blunt it doesn't really have anything to do with Frampton either but compliance with policies - isn't that the point of editors/editing to ensure compliance. If you look at the talk section of the profile other editors have suggested that it deserves no more than a passing mention if at all - I agree with part of that in that it cannot warrant a mention at all (I also note that editor wasn't accused of being Paul!).EightfoldWay — Preceding undated comment added 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Your whole reply is a masterpiece of obfuscation, so I'll try to rephrase. Paul was convicted by a court of law, and jailed as a drug smuggler, however inept. This is a fact that is not in dispute. He has not been pardoned by that court, or any other court in that jurisdiction. He is notable for a few reasons, sure, but most notable for the skirt chasing, carrying an empty suitcase on a plane into the country where he was convicted reason. Another court in a totally different country, which has no jurisdiction regarding the drug conviction has made some ruling that you are trying to claim somehow voids the conviction. You and Paul hold the same odd views on this, which have only been expressed here before by Paul himself, or his sockpuppets which is why I thought you are Paul, but I accept otherwise for wiki purposes, so you must understand why you are stretching my credibility just a little. You should accept that what is most notable about Paul is the drug smuggling, Bileptons and Festschrifts notwithstanding, and so that part of his biography will remain. -Roxy the dog. wooF 13:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Not that this is wrong, but I would bring up that if Frampton wasn't a respected professor and had no other notable background at the time of these events, there likely wouldn't have been any coverage of it beyond a police blotter, and we wouldn't have had any article. But as Roxy has said, a lot of his notability for having a standalone article comes from the attention he got during this conviction, so it would be completely wrong not to have that in the article. The article otherwise does try to provide a neutral overview of Frampton's career and place the conviction and aftermath with due weight within it, rather than harp only on the conviction alone. --Masem (t) 14:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah the Frampton rodeo again. Its about once a year we get this isnt it Roxy? So the key points are: He is a notable scientist. He is a notable scientist convicted of a significant crime. Said conviction cost him his job. Thats the end of it in terms of 'should the conviction be in the article' question. Everything subsequent to that has no bearing on if the material should be in the article or not. That there were irregularities in how he lost his job (and lest anyone think he would have stayed employed, no his employer would still have got rid of him. Just in a manner more fair to him) doesnt affect that this life event (drug smuggling conviction) significantly impacted on him. The current wording in the article (and this has been looked at multiple times by many editors) is as neutral as it can get. The issue which Framptom is well aware of (because it has been explained to him), is that even if we started putting in more post-conviction material related to the conviction, it just makes the conviction loom larger in the biography We cant actually add more material because a lot of it is either uncomplimentary, not-reliable, not-independant etc and would turn it effectively into an attack bio. And the problem with many scientists who potter along doing their (worthwhile) jobs, is that they dont get press unless something significant appears. So the obvious solution (which has been tried) is to minimise the conviction material to as neutral a wording as possible (done) and expand other areas where reliable sources exist (not done because there just isnt that much published and easily available). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It is a perfectly straight forward (and far from odd) view if you grasp the point I am trying to make. It is only about the policy's wording.

You are clearly misunderstanding what I have written - at no point have I said that the North Carolina decision voided the conviction, someone made the point that it was notable he was fired and that was the reason (or one of) for its inclusion, I was underlining the fact that was overturned and therefore not relevant. Again this is a complete red herring and not relevant to the point.

As I have repeated on multiple occasions it doesn't matter if it is true, neutral or well sourced, for the purpose of the policy that is the incorrect test to apply. It now appears that we are saying that the reason for the existence for Frampton's profile is the drug smuggling - since that is his notability, the particle theorist part is just a side/minor detail.

If you are saying he is notable for being a drug smuggler and that is the reason for the profile's existence then it should be deleted in its entirety as it would fall under news or a matter for a tabloid to deal with which goes against the BLP Policy. There certainly wouldn't be an entry as to his drug smuggling in an encyclopaedia (he is no Escobar). In addition, as a relatively unknown individual the material in the profile must be limited to that concerning the drugs (since you say his profession accolades are not enough for a profile) - that again would only leave news/tabloid material and therefore the profile should be deleted. Imagine how many profiles of drug smugglers would exist if we include drug smugglers with barely notable occupations.

I'll try and simplify the point - PF is a relatively unknown individual, I think we can agree on that point. If his profile exists because he is a particle theorist then the drugs stuff needs to come out under the BLP Policy as it should be limited to the relevant material as a particle theorist. If Frampton's profile exists because he is a drug smuggler then the material should be limited to the conviction/drug smuggling, which then falls foul of the BLP Policy and the profile should be deleted in its entirety. If you are saying he is notable for both then the professional part remains but the drugs element comes out as wikipedia is not a tabloid or news outlet.

The BLP Policy is clear: "Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives" and "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability".

To be fair Roxy's and a few others summary of the drug part only shows it to be tabloid material which is simply sensationalist. EightfoldWay

To OIDDDE, yes, an annual event. To Eightfoldway, the other give that made me think you are Paul is your username. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a talk page template to link to noticeboard discussions, so when an unfamiliar user sees one of these threads they can easily catch up on the history? That would be handy for perennial complaints. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems to me that the impasse here is that some of the terms used in WP:BLP are necessarily subjective. Is Frampton 'relatively unknown'? Is his conviction relevant to his notability? These are judgment calls, which reasonable people might disagree on: we are in the realm of editorial judgment. From a quick head count, I see at least seven experienced editors, including three site administrators, who conclude that there is no breach of policy; I see only one editor, the OP, who thinks that the inclusion of this material is a violation. There really is no point making the same arguments over and over: absent some new (and, frankly, ground-breaking) argument, this material is going to stay in the article. Girth Summit (blether) 23:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
This is really quite a lot. Collapsed huge wall of WP:IDHT by User:EightfoldWay
I agree that there is some subjectivity to the Policy, but that doesn’t seem to be the issue here to me. It is what test is being applied, which is not in line with the Policy. Of course there can be subjectivity, but if a subjective view is based on incorrect assumptions/facts then it cannot be considered a valid view. The other problem is that no reason has been given as to why it is a valid inclusion under the Policy, just that it is and now that the interpretation of the policy is subjective.

Taking the head count and as a very crude example:

(i) Scottish FR and Roxy commented “I disagree. It is well sourced and neutrally written. The coverage in multiple independent outlets shows that it is notable”. Sourcing and neutrally are irrelevant – the fact that it also is included in multiple outlets is also irrelevant. The test is, is it notable to Frampton as a Particle Theorist.

(ii) Masem commented: “The events related to the drug conviction absolutely affected his life and career (like, being fired and the subsequently lawsuit)” I dealt with the firing and the Court decision on that, but is it really relevant to his work as a Particle Theorist – it was completely unrelated to his works, in no way linked to his professional life (certainly a personal matter) was clearly a one off and he has no other criminal convictions (from what is publicly available).

Masem also commented that “If the only thing that could be discussed from quality sourcing related to Framptom was the drug-related crimes and litigation, we'd not have an article on him, most likely. Instead, Framptom, prior to anything with the drug stuff, was notable as an academic. That the drug litigation occurred and cost him his job at the end of the day builds on that. Now, if his crime was getting a speeding ticket and did not affect his career, of course we'd not even include that in his bio; that's trivial.” That surely shows that Frampton’s notability is as a particle theorist. It is only that notability/the so called severity of the crime which leads to the drugs being admissible and therefore on that reasoning and under the Policy it should not be included (the severity of a crime and the link it therefore being sensationalist being one reason).

(iii) Xxanthippe wrote “The subject is a very distinguished theoretical physicist. The material about his drug conviction is well sourced and neutrally written. Such a bizarre series of events needs at least the space given.” This seems to accept that the profile exists due to Frampton being a particle theorist and therefore that is his notability – the drugs are only notable due to his profile as a PT and therefore are not relevant for points previous raised as a relatively unknown person. The fact the drugs episode is described as a bizarre series of events would only indicate it is include to be sensationalist. On the basis of that view and applying the policy correctly the section should not be included.

(iv) Girth Summit commented “Masem is right - this subject looks like a clear WP:NPROF pass, and as such is notable according to our guidelines; arguments that the article ought to be deleted on grounds of notability seem exceedingly unlikely to gain traction.” I agree with you Frampton’s is notable as an academic and that is his notability and the reason for the Profile.

“We then pass onto the question of whether mention should be made of the conviction: given that it has been covered by multiple reliable sources, I can't think of any policy-based rationale for removing it; this information is squarely in the public domain, I don't see any BLP violation here.” I do not see how it being in the public domain is relevant to any policy test – the neutrality, truth or sourcing are not contested. The question is, is the drugs element relevant to Frampton as a PT/academic, the answer surely has to be no.

(v) Cullen stated “This is a notable person who, unfortunately, was convicted of a drug offense and served time in prison. There is no way under the sun that neutrally written, well-referenced content about this episode should be removed from his biography. It is an essential part of his life story.” This agrees that Frampton is notable as a particle theorist who was then convicted of a drug offense – notability = particle theorist. Again neutrality/sourcing not part of the test in these circumstances. The fact that it is essential to his life story shows that it is not material relevant to his notability but more a point of interest, something a tabloid would include and not an encyclopaedia, it adds sensation to the profile.

(vi) I note the Roxy believes Frampton is actually must notable for his conviction “He is notable for a few reasons, sure, but most notable for the skirt chasing, carrying an empty suitcase on a plane into the country where he was convicted should accept that what is most notable about Paul is the drug smuggling, Bileptons and Festschrifts notwithstanding, and so that part of his biography will remain” that comment also displays the tabloid like nature of the section. If Roxy is correct then the section shouldn’t apply at all as it just reporting the conviction of a drug smuggler.

Masem added to that in “Not that this is wrong, but I would bring up that if Frampton wasn't a respected professor and had no other notable background at the time of these events, there likely wouldn't have been any coverage of it beyond a police blotter, and we wouldn't have had any article” That reasserts the point that the drugs is only included due to Frampton’s notability as a PT and we are back to the point that material only in relation to that notability can (and should) be included.

(vii) Only in death agrees that Frampton’s notability is the fact he is a PT and the drugs are included because it cost him his job. However, the drugs material isn’t relevant to his work as a particle theorist, it has no bearing on his works/theories - Frampton can still publish theories whether or not he was/is employed. His employment is supplementary information. Again, the significance of the crime is highlighted as being a reason for its inclusion. “So the key points are: He is a notable scientist. He is a notable scientist convicted of a significant crime. Said conviction cost him his job.”

By my count there is only one person who views Frampton’s notability is not as a particle theorist. I am not sure that any particle theorist is going to be labelled as a well-known person, let alone Frampton. Therefore Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person. That established and in accordance with the policy only information that is relevant to the notability can be included. I fail to see how the drug conviction is related to his professional work as a particle theorist.

I understand and can see that there is not much time for Frampton given his previous actions/approach – but that is not the point or a reason to maintain the profile in its current form. I am not the only other person to hold this view and can see that JBW previously commented “In my opinion this whole incident, in proportion to Frampton's whole career, is too small to justify more than a passing mention, if any.” So I don’t have to be Paul (or one of his sockpuppets) to hold the view.

If it helps, I am aware that Sheldon Glashow, a Nobel Prize winning particle theorist Sheldon Lee Glashow, has apparently been interested in some of Frampton’s work. So much so that he has referred it to CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research)CERN who are working on that recommendation actively and a paper is expected to be published anytime. This was mentioned at the Miami University’s recent Physics Conference: . I appreciate you may not have been aware of this if you are uninterested in this Physics.

If CERN confirm Frampton’s theory he will likely be in line for a Nobel Prize - to some that might be groundbreaking. The next nomination deadline for the Nobel prize is 31 January 2022. Therefore not only should the drugs element not exist due to policy violation, but it must also be seriously questioned where it might jeopardise one person’s entire life works. Again, the policy says that the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talkcontribs) 18:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

To EightfoldWay, your logic is quite circular here, and it just keeps going 'round and 'round. This is not tabloid nonsense or trivia, and you can't just nitpick at little bits and pieces of policy like a lawyer would and expect to get anywhere. Wikipedia policy is better viewed as one giant equation, where info must satisfy every part of that equation in order to be included. It's written in a way as to be firm but flexible, to account for different situations, and each policy modifies and augments every other policy. This satisfies it all with flying colors. This is not a minor traffic stop we're talking about here, which is what the policy you keep quoting is meant to dissuade. This is a major event in this person's life and career, and is exactly the kind of thing a biography should report on. He even wrote a book about it, for Christ's sake! So trying to sweep it under the rug as if it never happened has an extremely low probability of occurring. If it affects his chances at the Nobel Prize, then (whether criminal or just gullible) he only has himself to blame. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm pretty far on the "protect BLP" side of of the spectrum, and even I see no issue with this. There's broad consensus in this thread that there are no WP:BLP concerns with the section as it stands. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Me too. One thing I keep thinking about the OP's last statement is, if the Nobel Prize for Physics Committee was just going to google his name and read only the Wikipedia article, then I would have just lost serious respect for them. Zaereth (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • One thing that needs to be on the record is that the article Paul Frampton was created in 2006 -- six years before his arrest. The article had apparently been edited over 1,000 times before he was arrested. So I don't think the claim that "I am not sure that any particle theorist is going to be labelled as a well-known person, let alone Frampton. Therefore Frampton can only be considered a relatively unknown person" can be substantiated. It's not the case that some Wikipedian saw an article about his arrest in 2012 and decided to create an article about him only then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
It might be circular but that is because no one has been able to actually explain why it is wrong, other than subjectivity or that is not how it is meant to be interpreted. If read literally it is clear and that is why there is no argument against it. If it is one giant equation where every point must be satisfied then by that definition it should be removed - it cannot satisfy the criteria of a relatively unknown individual, as the content must be linked to the notability i.e. as a particle theorist. Which policy alters the requirements as to a relatively unknown person?

The point that the profile was created prior to the arrest shows the reason for notability (particle theorist) and proves the point further. The fact that it has been edited 1,000 does not mean 1,000 people edited it (I note no time frame is given for those edits)- that could easily have been 2 or 3 people (over multiple years) and as such has no bearing on the point he is relatively unknown. As you state the article was created due to Frampton as a particle theorist and as his profile exists because he is a particle theorist then the drugs stuff needs to come out under the BLP Policy as it should be limited to the relevant material as a particle theorist. Your point, which I assume is designed to undermine what I have put, does quite the opposite. This is the problem I am finding, people want to oppose the position I am putting forward and of course have every right to do so, what I object to is the erroneous basis upon which they do - so yes multiple people disagree but that doesn't mean they do so correctly or on the basis of proper reasoning or understanding - inadvertently Metropolitan90 supports the point.[User:EightfoldWay|EightfoldWay] — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talkcontribs) 15:31, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not what WP:BLP says. The summary of WP:BLP says, "Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research." In this case, the discussion of Frampton's drugs arrest is appropriately sourced to such sources as The New York Times and Physics World. Frampton himself published a memoir about it titled Tricked! The Story of an Internet Scam. [1] I mean, we have better sourcing that Frampton was convicted of drug smuggling than that he is currently affiliated with the University of Salento, something which I assume you would want to be kept in the article -- the only source we have about his working at Salento is his own website. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
“Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability” — Preceding unsigned comment added by EightfoldWay (talkcontribs) 09:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
First, you should really learn how to properly indent your posts, because it makes a big difference in who you appear to be responding to. When I say circular logic, I mean that you keep ending with what you begin. I don't know this subject. Never heard of him before, and don't really care too much about it. But I've been working at BLPN for well over a decade, so I like to think I have a good understanding of policy and how it relates. In an attempt to help clear up any confusion, on Wikipedia, the term "notability", as in "what a person has been noted for", is defined solely by what reliable sources publish about them. It's not based on anything subjective; not our personal feelings nor those of the subject. It's very mathematical and goes strictly by a preponderance of reliable sources. We weigh those sources against each other to determine what a subject is most notable for, and what they are least notable for, and try to apportion everything accordingly. If a source publishes info about a subject, then they are notable for that.
The part of policy you keep citing works in conjunction with BLPCRIME. We're not here to collect a bunch of trivia on a subject or report on things like accusations and allegations, unless that info is so widespread as to pass WP:WELLKNOWN. For people who are not public figures, we use a much greater degree of restraint on such information. This doesn't qualify. According to the sources, he was convicted of the crime, so BLPCRIME is satisfied. A person can be notable for more than one thing. He is notable for this, and judging by the sources, at this point --today-- he is likely even more notable for this than he is for physics. (That may change if he wins the Nobel Prize, but even so, this isn't ever going away. Notability is a fluid and ever-evolving thing, all depending on what the sources write. "So let it be written. So let it be done.") Whether you or the subject like it or not, it is a big part of his notability now.
As an example, Bobby Beausoleil was originally a musician. As notable as he might have been for that, it was eclipsed when he was convicted for murder as part of the Manson Family. As much as he's worked to advance his music career since then, and has even sent his friends and family here to try and clean all the murder-stuff out of his bio, the fact that he was convicted of murder is never going away, and he'd have to reach the success of Elvis in his music career to even have a snowball's chance to make that his primary source of notability again. At the time, he probably never could have imagined how his case would blow up in the media, but that's the risk he took when he committed the crime. On Wikipedia, a person is notable for what reliable sources have noted about them. It's not rocket science. Zaereth (talk) 10:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
PS: If the subject really was tricked (and I'm not heartless and I feel for him if true, but for the sake of argument let's assume he was), if he was tricked, this would be my advice to him: turn it around to your benefit. Writing a book was a start. Next, hire a good PR rep; some Olivia Pope who can put a good spin on it. Appear on shows like Locked Up Abroad, where you can tell your one-side of the story. (It may not be a reliable source for Wikipedia, but may attracted some RSs to dig deeper into things.) Or just get out there and spread your name in the world of physics. Talk to reporters, and explain (in plain English!) all the cool stuff you work on. Tell them about yourself and who you are as a person. Go get that Nobel Prize. People often forget, nobody has more power than the subject to affect their own notability. But they can only do that from out there --not in here. What that will achieve is 1.) they get more of their side of the story in the article at the expense of weight (eg: a larger percentage of the article becomes devoted to the crime), or 2.) they just try to put it behind them and shift the weight to more physics-related stuff at the expense of making their denials and blame-shifts. (People will often go instinctively for the former, as a gut reaction, whereas the latter is generally the more effective strategy.) Whatever he does, he needs to find and admit his own faults to gain any sympathy from the world. That's crucial. I hope that helps, and good luck to him. Zaereth (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Genie (feral child)[edit]

We have an article about Genie (feral child). She is referred to only by the pseudonym "Genie" throughout the article, but nevertheless there are three photographs of her in the article. If we are protecting her privacy (as we should) by not using her name, is it proper for us to include photographs of her anyway? I would think that we shouldn't do so. (The best counterargument I can think of is that these photos are probably at least 50 years old and so they would not make her recognizable today.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Even setting aside any BLP concerns, three non-free images seems excessive. Spicy (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
I think using the photos is fine, as they are widely published and, as you point out, over fifty years old. As for the non-free issues, I can see using the first two. I don't believe the third adds at all to the understanding of the article subject. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Let's not set aside BLP concerns. This is a two-pronged issue. From a perspective of BLP policy, the use of publicly released and widely circulated images is not of concern, from my understanding of policy. I'm also not entirely convinced that the subject's real name is not used for the specific reason of privacy protection on Wikipedia. That may be an inadvertent effect of the fact that Genie is the WP:COMMONNAME for this article and the fact that this is the name that reliable sources use (exclusively, as far as I can tell) to refer to her. Insertion and use of her real name in the article would be contrary to guidelines. As an analogy, consider that we refer to Drake as Drake throughout his article, rather than as Graham, which is his real last name.
Now let's talk about the second perspective: use of non-free images. I entirely think that this is an issue for WP:COPYPROB. In this specific case, I would actually encourage following the normal avenue for discussion and resolution for this, rather than shoehorning a discussion on copyright into a WP:BLPN thread. This is because the images have each made a robust claim of fair use rationale, and copyvio is not immediately clear. I would want buy-in from editors well versed in this subject and would not support a determination of copyvio here without that input.
It would also be perfectly acceptable to form a local WP:CONSENSUS on the article talk page regarding the propriety of these photos in the article if copyvio is not the primary concern. AlexEng(TALK) 13:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
From a non-free policy, we would normally not allow non-free images of living persons on the basis that a free image could be obtained, but from her current status (a ward of the state and purposely kept anonymous to her location), we can assert that no free image is likely to come, and so a non-free image would be allowed. So as long as we know these images are legit, they immediately don't fail NFC.
On the privacy aspect, the fact these images appear to be from the 1970s studies and that we technically have no idea where she is now, I don't see an issue with using those images as long as they are also widely associated with discussions about her in the peer-reviewed work. I don't think you need the 3rd image under "second foster home"; the face image and her walk stance are reasonably appropriate and we're not going to be able to judge how she would look at 50-ish from them. But this is a bit more of a debate that doesn't have a clear answer. --Masem (t) 14:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

David P. Bloom[edit]

David P. Bloom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Should we include "Wall Street Whiz Kid" under the WP:CRIMEBIO info box for David P. Bloom?

Most reliable sources use the name "Wall Street Whiz Kid" in reference to the subject of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasBi (talkcontribs) 02:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This is silly. 'Wall Street Wizz Kid' is newspaper-speak. A shorthand description for headlines. It is not an alias.
It should probably be noted here that ThomasBi, the creator of this biography, is personally acquainted with the subject,[2] and seems inordinately interested in filling it with every bit of trivia that could possibly be shoehorned in. This, after I had to repeatedly explain Wikipedia policy to ThomasBi, and remove unsourced allegations etc that with hindsight should probably have been revdel'ed. At this point, I'd have to suggest that a partial block might be the most appropriate course of action. While we should make some allowances for newcomers, learning the Wikipedia ropes on such an article is inadvisable at the best of times, and when it gives every appearance of being motivated by some sort of personal connection, even more so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Is someone really "personally acquainted with the subject" by simply stating: "I claim this image as my own because I took a photo in 2021 when I met him briefly through an acquaintance." I found 3 reliable sources: [3], [4], [5] that use the term: "Wall Street Whiz Kid". I do not know of the interest the OP has; nor do I care. But is this Noticeboard the correct place to suggest a partial block? (Especially for an editor who just joined in January 2022) Whatever happened to: WP:NEWBIES or WP:AGF? I've read the Talk Page and also the editor's Talk Page; and saying "My response is that if you can't understand why adding 'Whiz Kid' as an alias to the infobox is stupid, you lack the competence to edit biographies" isn't WP etiquette. I see nothing in ThomasBi's responses to any contest or complaint that would rise to the level that you exert regarding this article. If anything, it would seem that you may be more "inordinately interested" in the editor in question, than the editor is in "filling it with every bit of trivia that could possibly be shoehorned in". The responses from the OP on Talk Pages were inquisitive, thankful, gracious and non-combative. I cannot say the same for those commenting in return. Maineartists (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

BLP violation at Kakistocracy?[edit]

See [6]. It's an opinion piece by a Republican, and a search for Joe Biden and kakistocracy turns up[7][8] which don't seem to back the claim "The term was also later used to describe the Biden Administration.". Added first by an IP and then by a new account, presumably the IP. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The opinion is WP:UNDUE since it doesn't seem like it's from from a notable person. Just more hyperbole. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Is it just me or does the article feel like a WP:DICDEF with a couple of examples tacked on? --RaiderAspect (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
No, it isn't just you. That is exactly what it is. With badly sourced/unsourced 'examples' tacked on for no better reason than partisan name-calling. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The Erdogan bit is supported by two tweets, an opinion piece in Deutsche Welle that doesn't mention Kakistocracy, and a Guardian article that also doesn't mention Kakistocracy. But that was written by one person who only made the one edit, and I've removed it. Doug Weller talk 07:40, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeesh... that article already feels like a coat rack even without the dubious claim mentioned in this thread. As for the specific violation, it seems more like a job for WP:NPOVN, but we're already here, and we have several editors now expressing disapproval of the edit; it should be removed. To clarify my previous wording, BLP vio seems like a stretch based on the fact that this is criticism of the administration rather than the individual. There's more fertile ground for general neutrality and verifiability concerns than for strict BLPVIO. AlexEng(TALK) 12:01, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
First, please don't use section headings for asking questions. As section headings are not "owned" by anyone, someone could change the heading to something better and your question could be lost. Second, the answer to your question is "no". Biden administration is not a living person. It consists of hundreds of people, so I don't see how it could fall under BLPGROUP either. Politrukki (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The question is even more absurd if you treat Biden administration as a living person and Trump administration as non-LP. Politrukki (talk) 14:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, I get it, I pissed you off. Sorry about that. But it was a question not a statement. If I'd stated it as "BLP violation at Kakistocracy" I would have been making an assertion, and I didn't want to do that. I can see that "There's more fertile ground for general neutrality and verifiability concerns than for strict BLPVIO" but I'm still convinced it was at least in part a comment on Biden himself. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Heh. I'm not pissed off, I'm amused. The same line you edited included John Brennan's tweet that was a direct reply to Donald Trump. Politrukki (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

sylvia beach whitman[edit]

Hello. I am the subject of this page, My name is actually just "Sylvia Whitman." The "Beach" was inserted by others as an affectation; I do not use it myself, nor do I prefer it. Could you please remove the "Beach" from the name of this page? Again, it should just be "Sylvia Whitman." Thank you, thank you! - Sylvia — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Please write [email protected] to confirm that it is you that is making the request. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

The reliable sources cited in the article refer to her as Sylvia Beach Whitman, because her father named her after Sylvia Beach. The actual name is reflected in the lead sentence but are there any objections to moving the page to Sylvia Whitman? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

No objections here, but I don't know if the subject is notable, on account of notability of the book store being WP:NOTINHERITED. I haven't nominated it for AfD yet, however, as I'm a bit tied up with other things and don't have the bandwidth for a legitimate WP:BEFORE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Doing a Google News search reveals that plenty of RS refer to her as just Sylvia Whitman but all in the context of the bookstore. She probably does not have notability outside her father and the store. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Grace Randolph[edit]

I am submitting a request for review of Grace Randolph's page

Specifically the "Lady and the Tramp Racebending" section. It seems very unfair to me to include this accusation on her Wikipedia page when it's based on unproven hearsay and is poorly sourced, unable to cite an article from a single website of note or even semi-note.

This section is only able to cite a single article from an obscure website. [1] The sole basis for the article is a third party tweet that no longer exists because the twitter account was suspended, which reasonably calls the supposed accusations of that tweet into question. Furthermore, there is no proof - no video of Randolph, no tweets from Randolph, and again no article from a well known publication - that Randolph ever criticized Tessa Thompson's casting. The video from Randolph that the article does include has her specifically clarifying that she has no problem with Tessa Thompson's casting. Furthermore, the article also states that in the same video Randolph is also advocating for diverse representation re DC's Black Canary. As for Gail Simone's tweet, while she's a notable figure, I don't see how her tweet of a single question mark offers any proof or validation.

(There was one other article sourced previously [2], but it has the exact same problems re being an obscure website and using the same questionable deleted tweet as evidence. That article also stated that when visiting Randolph's YouTube channel himself, the reporter only saw her advocating for representation as well, in that case hoping for positive portrayal of an LGBT character in the upcoming Jungle Cruise.)

Randolph has also been very supportive of Halle Bailey as Ariel aka The Little Mermaid [3] and Leslie Grace as Batgirl [4].

I've tried to remove this myself but because I am an admitted fan of Randolph's, my edits have not been accepted. The editor who created Randolph's page, and who I've seen be invited to weigh in on discussions on her page before, thankfully agreed and also tried to remove the section, however it has been put back again by the editor who added the section in the first place.

So insight from other editors not previously involved would be greatly appreciated, thank you! ChromaticaCali (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Reviewing a google search[9] shows only the two sites mentioned. This section is UNDUE in that it doesn't satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE and I will remove it until consensus to readd is gained. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I wasn't able to find any significant coverage either. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Idris bin Abdullah al-Senussi[edit]

The article isn't factual at all. Having researched the matter fully, for starter, Idris is not a Prince of Libya. I tried editing the page to reflect reality and am doing my Master's in Libyan History and am very familiar with this topic. The page discusses someone alive and is incredibly dishonest, not least because it brushes over so much important information such as the 1995 court case, the Debrett's ruling, or the completely made-up things.

Some examples of uncited and inaccurate information returned to the page after my edits include:

"Prince Idris al-Senussi began working on leading the royal family and uniting Libya, as this role was passed onto him by his late father." (This is literally untrue)

"He has also been playing a diplomatic role to help balance the differences between Libya and Africa, the Arab World, Europe, the United States, Latin America and Asia." (What diplomatic role?)

"He returned to Libya on 23 December 2011 with his cousin, Prince Ahmed Zubair Al-Senussi." (He does not live in Libya)

Idris is supported by an Advisory Council (the Senussi royal family allows polygamy, which is "a factor that complicates all claims of royal legitimacy through descent")[2] that heads the Sanussiyyah movement which embraces the majority of Libyan tribes.

(Again, this is entirely untrue and has no citation to prove it)

Other parts of the page include clearly propagandistic information,

Other parts which I added, from reputable sources like such as the Globe and Mail were removed.

It would be helpful if an additional editor could:

1. Review and remove the unsourced material and remove it. As per Wikipedia Community standards, it contains "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". A few of the examples are above.

2. Restore my own corrections that were indeed properly sourced

Thanks Moonlight Sunshine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moonlightsunshine1994 (talkcontribs) 16:41, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to find better sources than discussion boards like[10] and [11], or Wikipedia mirrors, like [12]. I suggest you familiarize yourself with our sourcing guidelines, especially for BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting[edit]

Link: Talk:Kenosha unrest shooting It has been brought to my attention that "BLP applies outside of articles. BLP trumps talk page guidelines". I am therefore reporting my own post for calling Rosenbaum (Redacted). In my defense, when I posted that statement I was under the impression that it was allowed, especially on a talk page with an inline citation from a reliable source. I had seen much worse in other talk page discussions and assumed that my good faith edits were acceptable.

I apologize in advance for my limited part in violating talk page guidelines in a way that makes it hard to track the change history of that section. In my defense, I did not start it and I tried to limit those edits to the minimum necessary in order to maintain the original context of the discussion.

Finally, I would like to clarify that this report refers ONLY to my own edits on the article talk page. I am specifically NOT using this report to refer to any BLP violations in the article itself. A draft essay in my user space titled "A female paper on NPOV" was deleted without discussion shortly after someone created a section titled "Discretionary sanctions notices" on my Talk page. I prefer to WP:Assume good faith and think that the timing was just a coincidence, but just in case it wasn't, I want to avoid antagonizing people who know how to trigger the deletion of more of my contributions to Wikipedia.

If my statements on the talk page are indeed a BLP violation (which I am still unsure about) I am hereby asking for the whole section to be deleted, not only from the talk page but from the edit history as well. On the other hand, if my original good faith assumption was correct and the WP:RS I quoted justify the language I used, I ask for administrative intervention to revert the section heading to my original title (no need to touch the history in that case). Annette Maon (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I would say that the first thing that needs to happen is the OP needs to avoid this subject completely from now on, since their sole purpose appears to be repeating negative comments about a BDP subject in as many fora as possible. Black Kite (talk) 11:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Annette Maon: I've redacted your BLP violation on this page. Yes the subject may be dead for over a year, but it still technically covered by BDP and it simply serves no purpose so please stop repeating it all over the place. If you need to refer to a mistake you've made or may have made that has not been rev-deleted then please use a WP:diff. If it has been rev-deleted then clearly it should not be repeated. Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also as WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN explains, section titles on talk pages are not considered part of the signed comment and so do not belong to any particular editor, instead they belong to the community. If you've given essential information that is only in the section title then stop doing that and you will not have to worry when someone edits your section title. If you haven't then as I said, there's no reason to get upset, just let it be when someone changes your section title to be more neutral, whether it involved BLP. Nil Einne (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Here's your daily dose of irony. I am now editing the section heading for this noticeboard thread to conform to accessibility standards for screen readers set forth in WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN, due to the inadvertent creation of a URL in an anchor link. Face-wink.svg AlexEng(TALK) 12:13, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Since OP seems to be concerned about the coincidences on her talk page, the timeline is: OP posted on a noticeboard, I skimmed contributions and saw BLP and civility issues with their posts to talk pages, clicked an old essay they wrote, saw BLP violations and tagged. While this was happening, an admin independently noticed their activity in BLP and dropped standard discretionary notices. The CSD tag on the essay caused two other admins to visit them with some words of wisdom. Just another day on wikipedia where 4 editors independently react to an issue seen. With all that said, OP should step away from BLP completely as their activity across three articles has been concerning and WP:DONTBITE doesn't equal "ignore repeated BLP and civility violations from a newcomer".Slywriter (talk) 12:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Slywriter: I may be losing my memory, but as far as I can remember this was my first post to any noticeboard. Can you please remind me where you saw me posting on a noticeboard before this? I was not aware that Firefangledfeathers is an admin, can someone help me figure out a way to check if they are? As for the accusation of "repeated BLP and civility violations from a newcomer" across three articles, can you please point out which activities of mine constitute BLP violations on any articles other than the one that I raised myself here? Annette Maon (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
I am not an admin. The best way I know of to check is to enable 'Navigation popups' in you Preferences. Among many other helpful uses, hovering over a user's signature shows what user groups they are a part of, including 'administrator'. Firefangledfeathers 15:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers I already had 'Navigation popups' enabled, but didn't realize that they could be used for that. Thank you. Annette Maon (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Annette Maon, you visited the Teahouse Special:Diff/1066719606 which lead to seeing Special:Diff/1066674606, Special:Diff/1066681498,Special:Diff/1066687551,Special:Diff/1066707842 concering Elon Musk's Page. And your interactions at Talk:Orson Scott Card were not much better. You see enemies and organized plots against the subject everywhere. This is a collaborative project and WP:CIVIL is not optional.Slywriter (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Slywriter I have yet to receive an answer to the good faith technical request which I posted at the TeaHouse. I was not aware that the TeaHouse was considered a noticeboard and that posting there could trigger the process that what you describe above instead of producing an answer to my question. I had been careful to avoid noticeboards in an attempt to avoid WP:Wikihounding. Apparently, I should have avoided the TeaHouse as well if I wanted to avoid being accused of paranoia. Can you please help me avoid incivility by pointing out phrases in the links you posted where I can apply "strike it and apologise" per WP:CIVIL? Annette Maon (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Annette Maon, better idea, just stop discussing editors even in vague terms going forward. Stick to content and sources, not your perceived motivations of the editors. Consensus does not require satisfying every last objection nor does it always require an RfC. We are volunteers and the worst thing you can do is become a time-sink for editors when there are millions of other tasks we would rather be doing.Slywriter (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Annette Maon, I would certainly appreciate it if you would strike and apologize for comments here and elsewhere that suggest misconduct, including intimidation, on my part. Firefangledfeathers 20:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC) striking 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers I could not find any place "here" where I referred to you in any way that suggests misconduct. It is hard to strike out a comment that does not exist. As a newcomer, I may not yet be aware of what you think constitutes a suggestion of "misconduct". In light of the help you provided to me here, which I already thanked you for, I did find a comment elsewhere that I could strike out and apologize for. Annette Maon (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
You're right! I reread your first comment here, and you only mentioned the possibility of something bad faith occurring. Sorry about that. Firefangledfeathers 02:24, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite Thank you for redacting the section to avoid what you consider to be BLP violations. If the statements you redacted had been made in article space, I would have been the first to agree that they would be BLP violations. This is why I made them only in the Talk page under my signature where it was clear that they were not made in Wikipedia voice. Am I to understand correctly from your redaction that there is no way to even quote any of these words in mainspace even if the source was appropriately attributed to the voice of the Washington post?

Based on the results so far, I will be staying away from Kenosha unrest shooting and its talk page unless I am specifically invited by an administrator to help provide balance on that page. With regard to the concern about WP:POINT, I was never tempted "to try to discredit the rule or interpretation thereof". As a newcomer I am simply trying to be bold and figure out the social dynamics that prevent rules which seem more than reasonable to me from being applied consistently. Seeing how Black Kite's redactions interfere with my ability to see or link to a diff of Cedar777's 09:26, 17 January 2022‎ version has helped me understand why people are reluctant to post potential BLP violations to this noticeboard. I would certainly think ten times before not posting here about BLP violations if I wanted to be able to go back to a talk page and reread, in context, the opinions of people I respect with POVs different from mine. Having learned that lesson, I see no point in trying something like that again. Annette Maon (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia, regardless of namespace. Talk pages, articles, templates, user pages, everything. It does say so in the opening paragraph of the policy. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages Footnote b further elaborates: "The biographies of living persons policy applies to all references to living persons throughout Wikipedia, including the titles of articles and pages and all other portions of any page." AlexEng(TALK) 17:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Annette Maon, there was nothing wrong with the general question you asked at the Kenosha page. It is reasonable to ask if the article should cover lawsuits that might be brought against those who enabled Rosenbaum's behavior/to bin in this situation. The issue is how the question is asked. Take an hypothetical case where a person was accused of murder but the case failed due to lack of evidence. We can't talk about "that murder Mr Luchini who was accused of bank robbery" because the murder part is effectively a libelous claim. We can say, "Mr Luchini is accused of bank robbery". If it's relevant and supported by sources we can even say he was a murder suspect but not convicted. Since what we say here can harm BLP subjects we need to be careful. Springee (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng and Springee: Thank you for stating the obvious. As I mentioned above, I will be staying away from Kenosha unrest shooting so if anyone thinks my question had merit, they will have to take it up themselves. I do not care enough about maintaining WP:BLPBALANCE to try and fix it. Black Kite has already addressed my BLP question and unless I hear otherwise, I will assume that there is no way to even quote the redacted words in mainspace even if the source was appropriately attributed to the voice of a WP:RS. As for my curiosity about the social dynamics of WP:Wikihounding and WP:How to Ban a POV You Dislike, in 9 Easy Steps that has been satisfied as well. Apparently paranoids like me should stay away from the TeaHouse as well, even when "there was nothing wrong with the general question" being asked. Annette Maon (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Calm down. I don't see anyone here trying to be mean to you. If it was obvious, then why ask the question? There are almost an infinite number of ways to say exactly the same thing. What's the point of using one that is a blatant violation of policy? (This is a very odd line of questioning, and something about this gives me vibes of WP:NOTLAB.) The answer to your question is very simple. You assume correctly. Regardless of whether it's found in a reliable source, if it violates policy then it violates policy. EZPZ. I don't know what the redacted words were, but I've seen Black Kite around long enough to trust their judgment on such matters. Zaereth (talk) 20:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Zaereth Thank you for mentioning that you "don't know what the redacted words were" are you willing to WP:assume good faith and believe me that at least some of them were quoted (or summarized) directly from:

Joseph (Redacted) — depressed, homeless and alone — didn’t belong to either side. He had spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual conduct with children when he was 18 and struggled with bipolar disorder. That day, Aug. 25, (Redacted) was discharged from a Milwaukee hospital following his second suicide attempt in as many months and dumped on the streets of Kenosha.
Hours after he was released from the hospital, (Redacted) stopped by a pharmacy in Kenosha to pick up medication for his bipolar disorder, only to discover that it had closed early because of the unrest. He visited his fiancee, who was living in a cheap motel room, but she told him he couldn’t stay the night. She had pressed charges against him a month earlier after a fight in which he knocked her down and bloodied her mouth. If (Redacted) violated his no-contact order, she warned, he could be sent back to jail.
By 18, he was in prison for sexual conduct with five preteen boys, the children of people who had taken him in after his mother told him to leave her house, according to a presentencing report. He spent most of the next 14 years behind bars. Not long after he was released in 2016, he met a woman in Arizona and fathered a child, but the relationship didn’t last. When the woman fled to Kenosha, (Redacted) chased her.
Aside from one supervised visit, he never saw the child for whom he had moved to Kenosha.
He spent a few days in the hospital followed by a few more days in jail for violating the no-contact order with his former girlfriend. Then he was sent for more treatment to the mental hospital in Milwaukee.
In videos from that night, (Redacted) often appeared agitated. When a member of the Kenosha Guard, a self-proclaimed militia, pointed his gun at him, (Redacted) became enraged and dared the man, who was White, to kill him. “Shoot me, n-----!” he shouted.

Annette Maon (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, that helps me see, and at first glance I see BLPCRIME and BLPPRIVACY issues a mile away, from a source that reads like an op/ed written in a narrative writing-style, which wouldn't be considered a reliable source even if it came from a reliable news outlet. Every news outlet has their op/ed columns and special-interest pieces that are not reliable even if the real news stories they print are. But even if it were reliable, we don't need to or even want to include everything ever printed in a reliable source on Wikipedia. Imagine the mess that would create. (Ever see the TV Show Hoarders?) Wikipedia is here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge.
For example, let's say Subject A has his full birthdate published in a reliable source. According to policy, that's not good enough, because we need to be absolutely sure Subject A doesn't mind having his birthday published, so we need to see it published widely, in multiple sources, such we can be certain that he is ok with us publishing it too. Likewise, we don't go around telling a person's private medical information without a MEDRS compliant source and some serious confirmation that the subject is ok with having their very personal and private info forever etched in stone on the pages of Wikipedia. Same with alleged criminal acts when the person is not a public figure but just a private citizen, and no conviction has yet been secured. It's a simple matter of ethics. Doing what's right, not just doing it because we can. I really wish more journalists today would read and comply with their own code of ethics. But this is exactly the kind of thing BLP policy was created to deal with. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Zaereth Thank you for posting your relevant and level headed analysis while I answered Alex below. I wish I had met more people like you and AlexEng earlier. You could have cured me of some of the bad habits I acquired from my first acquaintances on Wikipedia. Better late than never. I might want to ask you some questions about some of those early experiences, but ...
My earlier (possibly subjective) feeling of intimidation have been completely overshadowed by something else that I saw here which terrifies me. Before anyone gets offended, even a borderline paranoid like me is almost certain that no one individual or group bears the blame for what terrifies me. Still, I do not dare to even mention what it is in public for fear of giving someone an idea. I need to take your advice, and cool down. Maybe I should talk to someone later, after I get some sleep. But it can not be the teaHouse. I need to figure out who I can talk to safely. Annette Maon (talk) 06:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

One thing that I think is helpful to keep in mind is that ... how do I put this? People expect an encyclopedia to be better than the sources it uses. That's why they're found in the "reference section" of the library. I know it sounds like a self-contradiction, but people have been doing it since the dawn of time. Lathes and milling machines were first built using crude hammers and files. We're supposed to look past the day-to-day news; correct their mistakes and reconcile all their inconsistencies... That's what we do. (And to be perfectly blunt, even the best news outlet is near the bottom of the barrel in the hierarchy of reliable sources.) We won't really have a good historical perspective until many years have passed and books have been written. Zaereth (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Annette Maon: if it was obvious, then why did you ask about it? This is a WP:VOLUNTEER project, and nobody is forcing you to put in work that you don't want to do with respect to WP:BLPBALANCE or otherwise. You are only required to act within the limits of WP:PAGs as appropriate. One of those PAGs is WP:CIVILITY, and you just left a decidedly uncivil comment as a response to a good faith attempt to help you on the part of two editors. I'm not thin-skinned enough to go complain about it, but somebody grouchy may very well take you on a trip to WP:ANI if you continue to lash out at people. Best of luck. AlexEng(TALK) 20:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

AlexEng First I would like to thank you for your civil response to what you considered to be "a decidedly uncivil comment as a response to a good faith attempt" to answer what you honestly thought my question was. It was the combination of your responses that allowed me to figure out the source of the misunderstanding. I have struck out my earlier unfortunate comment about 'stating the obvious'. Now that I understand why it was offensive to you, I sincerely apologize for making it. I assure you that I meant no disrespect when I made it.

I had not realized before that without the inadvertently redacted context, none of you could figure out that my question actually referred to Talk page discussion about the multiple WP:BLPCRIME exceptions for convicted criminals that are implied in the Washington post quotes above.

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured [emphasis added].

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information.


At the time I did not even realize that you were trying to answer my question. All I could see was statements which I mistakenly interpreted as a unanimous vote against allowing any quotes from a secondary WP:RS like the Washington Post even when it explicitly mentions a "conviction for child sexual conduct". I understand that it is EZPZ that a dead convicted criminal is protected by BLP even on a talk page. Meanewhile, a whole section in mainspace is devoted to "different judicial proceedings [that] result in seemingly contradictory outcomes" which reflect directly on Rittenhouse who is an acquitted living WP:SUSPECT. I could see that my talk page suggestions have been redacted while no action is taken on the Article itself.

It seems obvious to me that there is no point in discussing anything on an article talk page if there is no chance that it will lead to an eventual improvement to the article itself. I am the one who initiated this WP:BLPN, reporting my own posts (which had not been rev-deleted before it was redacted here) in order to figure out what the Discretionary sanctions notices on my talk page really meant. Facing a unanimous vote and having gotten more answers than I bargained for, I was trying to back out gracefully. Obviously, I am not so good at that because I somehow managed to offend even the people that I respect in the process. I apologize again, I hope you can now understand how my misunderstanding caused all this mess and forgive me. Annette Maon (talk) 05:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we can all forgive you. I've not looked at the talk page, because I have a lot going on a real life and just don't have time to dig at the moment. I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to get at here. If someone puts a discretionary sanctions notice on your talk page, it's just a friendly notice that you've wandered into a mine field and you should be extra careful where you step. These sanctions are extra rules placed on certain topics that attract a lot of fighting, and they're meant to keep everything from getting out of hand. For example, just about anything having to do with Israel and Palestine attract people who want to bring the fight to Wikipedia, and frankly, we get tired of it, so such articles were put under sanctions by WP:ARBCOM.
Even without "assuming Good Faith not just as a Wikipedia Policy", it would still be clear that all of Zaereth's and AlexEng's comment here as well as most of the others are not just WP:AGF but a partially successful attempt to be helpful as well. I never expected everyone here to waste their valuable time looking at my talk page to see that my concerns went beyond "a friendly notice that you've wandered into a mine field". I also did not expect any editors with a cunning and deceitful nature to
  • try to silence my POV
  • make false claims in accusations against me
  • rely on the fact that most honest people have better things to do than look at my talk page and
  • send those honest people without warning into a very different kind of mine field.
I do not want to further derail this discussion so I will try to "Stick to content and sources" with what I intend to be my last post here. I realize that "Withdrawing from communication with a tendentious or quarrelsome editor" could be "construed as giving that editor consent to do what they like" here. At this point, I no longer care. I have already spent too much time on this one topic and I prefer to move on. Annette Maon (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: Please assume good faith before jumping to the conclusion that I am accusing anyone here personally of anything. If you have concerns please raise them on my Talk page and "Stick to content and sources" here. I hope the last ephemeral flapping of my butterfly wings here will not be quashed by new accusations that they might cause a destructive Hurricane in Florida. Annette Maon (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
As for Rittenhouse, this is a person who has risen to the level of a public figure. The term "public figure" is one with a very specific legal definition, and under the law they don't have the same expectations of privacy that a relatively unknown person does, and this is very necessary, because with such people there is often an overriding need for the public to know. Likewise, for Wikipedia purposes, we have an exception to BLPCRIME, called (ironically enough) WP:PUBLICFIGURE. As an analogy, take Casey Anthony. This is a person who is not independently notable enough to have her own article, yet for a time hers was a household name. Even to this day you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who doesn't know of her. Although not by her own choice, she too has been lofted to the level of public figure, and we really have to report on the case even though she was found innocent.
As for your last statement, there is a point in discussion, because, even if consensus goes against you, you may in fact change someone's mind, and if you can affect even one person, you have done infinitely better than not saying anything at all. Don't expect changes to all come at once. Sometimes it's a very gradual process. A butterfly flapping its wings in China can lead to a hurricane in Florida. (See: the butterfly effect, aka. chaos theory). If I may offer a bit of constructive criticism, your questions have been vague and your posts leave a lot of room for interpretation, and this may be causing at least part of your difficulties. For example, referring to the boxed quote you placed above, BLPCRIME is only one of many parts of BLP policy it violates, and it's just as easy to say it violates the very preamble of BLP, as Alex did. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Content and sources[edit]

Zaereth Thank you for trying to restore my faith in WP:NPOV. Going back to my regular WP:WikiGnome mode:

  • Following the two links for Robert Klemko and Greg Jaffe in the "article quoted above" seems to indicate that they are staff reporters with relevant expertise. The article is not a blog and the Washington post is a "generally reliable" source according to WP:RSP.
  • Primary source[1] for criminal record if you do not consider the Washington post reliable enough
  • I had never heard of Casey Anthony before she was mentioned here. Coverage of her trial outside the USA may not have been as extensive as what some of you experienced.
  • The Kenosha shootings were reported in international news headlines even outside the USA. (Redacted)'s background was brought to my attention by different friends and relatives who pointed me to Fox news, and Joe Rogan which are not sources that I usually consume myself (unless I am doing opposition research).
  • Those sources do not bother to introduce (Redacted) to the audience which make it sound like he is already a public figure (at least among the US people who voted for Trump which make up much of their target audience).
  • I found the Washington Post article when I tried to figure out for myself if the allegations about (Redacted)'s conviction had any basis.
  • A google search also returned this from a source that according to WP:RSP should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements. WP:RSP recommends that when they cite another source for their own article, it is preferable to read and cite the original source instead.
  • My attempts to find an originsal source for the image titled "Special conditions of Probation for sex offenders - contact with children" uncovered similar documents from several states but I do not have access to tools like LexisNexis that would allow me to see if an exact match exists and how it might be relevant to (Redacted) through a secondary source.
  • I looked for (Redacted)'s name in Wikipedia, hoping to find NPOV coverage but was disappointed at many levels:
    • At the factual level: There is no mention of (Redacted)'s relevant criminal record even though the minor who shot him claimed self defense and the allegations were public and notable even if they were not true.
    • WP:NPOV: The article contains no mention of a significant POV about who triggered the shooting incident (not to mention my own minority POV which is probably irrelevant).
    • WP:UNDUE and WP:Fringe theories: The section on pending civil lawsuits (after the acquittal) contains the text: "alleged that the defendants had participated in a conspiracy" stating that it is quoted from a lawsuit that was "withdrawn by the plaintiffs" and "dismissed with prejudice". The civil litigations may be relevant in other articles about conspiracy theories but not here. Giving them undue weight in this context makes Wikipedia sound like it promotes conspiracy theories even to cursory readers who never heard of the WP:Fringe theories policy.
    • My attempts to have a civil discussion about these admittedly contentious issues were mangled and derailed by WP:AGF edits and redactions which repeatedly removed the context in which I tried improve the Wikipedia article by addressing these issues.
  • The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel responded to "Questions from readers about our reporting" explaining "Why we aren't reporting on the records of the victims of the Kenosha protest shooting".[2]. The existence of such questions from their readers indicates that (Redacted) was already a public figure even before the explanation was published.
  • The questionable primary source: "" for a goFundme public campaign to raise money posthumously for (Redacted)'s funeral and/or daughter was mentioned extensively in secondary international media coverage. [3][4][5][6][7][8] These are "multiple reliable third-party sources" for establishing that he was a public figure even before some media outlets started covering his criminal records while others chose to hide them. Several of these sources may not be reliable enough to be quoted due to misleading coverage of the primary goFundme campaign and contradictions between them, but taken together they all establish that just like Rittenhouse and Casey Anthony (Redacted) is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE whether he wanted to be or not.
  • A second WP:RSP for the criminal record: [9]. Annette Maon (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • According to WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article — even if it is negative". Annette Maon (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Can you condense the point into 3-4 concise sentences? This is bordering on incoherent. ValarianB (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I think a key point you're missing is we not have any article on the redacted subject as they are not notable. Therefore public figure or not, we're only going to cover details of on the subject relevant to any articles we do have. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok Annette, you see, this is where we get into problems of, what's called in fighter-pilot lingo, "target fixation", which often leads to disaster. Wikipedia policy is not written like laws and nor can be argued like a lawyer would argue law. It just never gets anyone anywhere. The policy is all like a big machine, where all the parts are working together simultaneously. BLPCRIME and PUBLICFIGURE are all parts of the section titled "Presumptions in favor of privacy", and there's a reason it's all lumped into one section. I still don't know who the redacted person is, or what other words were redacted, but you'll notice the first subsection in that section is titled, "Avoid victimization". This means that we need to take great care to avoid harming the victims anymore than they already have been, and this includes not naming them unless it is absolutely vital information the reader needs to understand the story. Now, obviously the redacted person is a victim and is dead, but that doesn't mean it can't cause harm. This person likely has friends and family, and unless the name is absolutely essential to the story, naming them is just a terrible thing to do, and I don't know why anyone would want to. The same reason we don't name the victims of convicted rapists, we shouldn't be naming victims plane crashes, shootings, crimes, or other events. I am a big advocate of minimizing victimization.
As for many of these sources you cite, like I said above, I wish they would follow their own code of ethics (which I linked above). This is part of why news outlets are at the bottom of the totem pole of RSs. To be considered an encyclopedia, we need to do way, way better than that. When we get too target-fixated on little pieces of policy, it's easy to lose sight of the forest for all the trees. Another part of policy says we should keep in mind the spirit under which it was written and not get too hung up on the "letter of the law".
Now, let me ask you this: why is it so important? More importantly, ask yourself, "Why is it so important to me?" I haven't been following the story. US news sucks, and has sucked since the 1990s, and is only getting worse. (I mean, when the news outlets are owned by corporations like Microsoft and Disney, it's hard to take them too seriously.) So, perhaps there is some reason that makes it necessary to name this person. I don't know. But in most (like 99.999% of the time) names not necessary information to tell the story. Most of the time, it's just as easy to use a generic descriptor, like "victim". If you have a good reason, don't you think it would be possible to go to the talk page and discuss it without violating policy in the process? Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I haven't read most of this discussion since I'm not that interested but just a quick note that the person the OP is referring to is named in our article. The OP's concern seems to be in part the inclusion of past criminal convictions. These criminal convictions were not part of the trial. I don't know the details but I assume at least in part the judge considered them prejudical since it's not something the shooter knew about. BTW I just noticed the OP brought up a primary source. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we never use court transcripts, prisoner records etc to establish a conviction and so they are pointless to bring up. The OP needs to concentrate on the secondary sources if they want to have any hope of getting any change. Nil Einne (talk) 01:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I saw that too, but what caught my eye the most was talk of this person's medical info, which is also a big no-no. If we're not going to do it to Trump, we certainly shouldn't be doing it to this person. My advice to Annette is this: work on some articles you're not very passionate about until you get a good understanding of why all these policies exist and how they relate. This whole thing has violations on so many levels, it's far easier and more concise to just answer the way Alex did. Zaereth (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Print Inmate". Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  2. ^ "Why we aren't reporting on the records of the victims of the Kenosha protest shooting, and answers to other questions about our coverage". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  3. ^ "A mentally ill man, a heavily armed teenager and the night Kenosha burned". Washington Post. Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  4. ^ Shelbourne, Annysa Johnson, Mark Johnson and Talis. "What we know about the victims of the Kenosha protest shooting that killed two men and injured another". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  5. ^ CNN, Christina Maxouris. "Kyle Rittenhouse was acquitted on all charges. Here's what we know about the 3 men he shot". CNN. Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  6. ^ "What we know about the victims of the Kenosha shooting". Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  7. ^ "Who was Joseph D. Rosenbaum and how did he die in the Kenosha protests?". Future Tech Trends. 2021-11-19. Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  8. ^ "Who was Joseph D. Rosenbaum and how did he die in the Kenosha protests?". The US Sun. 2021-11-20. Retrieved 2022-01-24.
  9. ^ "What's True and False About People Kyle Rittenhouse Shot in Kenosha". Retrieved 2022-01-24.

Alicia malone[edit]

this Tcm host previously had a biography page. this page has been deleted. why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Alicia Malone is a redirect to Screen Junkies. This was done by Somethingwickedly on August 20, 2016 and there does not appear to have been any previous history of such an article. If you want to create an article about this person, you should look at WP:YFA and WP:N. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Dick Carlson[edit]

I have read the article but cannot confirm how you determined Dick Carlson's name at birth was Richard Boynton. I checked your sited source material and it's very weak and does not accurately site your source. How did you come to this conclusion? Why did he change his last name? When did he change his last name? Please provide additional source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miked0013 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Philip Proudfoot[edit]

There's a repeated effort to add defamatory, legally actionable material to the article in order to construct a narrative that the subject is antisemitic. It's worth noting that Mr. Proudfoot is currently undertaking legal action in response to being defamed in this area, and as such this kind of murmuring material is likely to get caught up in the cases and could expose Wikipedia to damages. It's also worth noticing that the same attempt has been made against his political party, the Northern Independence Party, where it has already been resolved by an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:NLT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
The citations to the disputed assertions[13] are not adequate to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there seems to be an attempt at WP:SYNTH between the Jewish Chronicle (JC) and BBC citation as the BBC link does not mention Proudfoot. Further, WP:RSP states that the JC is a biased source on topics related to the British Left. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert Sirico[edit]

Are we sure this biography doesn't conflate two different people--one who is a Catholic priest who runs a conservative thinktank in Michigan, and one who is a pentecostal minister and gay rights advocate in Los Angeles? Because I personally know the one in Michigan, and he is in no way a supporter ot LBGT causes.

Don Brophy [email protected] — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

He explains the discrepancy here.[14] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of VP proposal regarding NSPORT that would affect BLPs[edit]

A Village Pump proposal — regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must also demonstrate SIGCOV in secondary independent RS when challenged at AfD — may be of interest here for its effect on BLPs. JoelleJay (talk) 00:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Harry Collett[edit]

Someone who has been repeated citing birth dates from Twitter as "unreliable source", as they quoted Twitter should never be used for third-party claims related to living persons. It depend on Wikipedia's policy on WP:BLPSPS, WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:RSPTWITTER. -- (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Twitter can be used as a self-published source about the article subject if the tweets are by the article subject, as that is not a "third-party claim". However, in the Harry Collett article, the Twitter sources do not appear to clearly identify the article subject's birthday. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
It almost violates the BLP. For example, citing IMDb for any inappropriate content should not be used as reliable sources for any potentially contentious material about personal information (including birth dates). -- (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Wallyfromdilbert here. If someone tweets "today is my birthday" from a verified account, okay fine maybe we can take this as complying with WP:BLPDOB and WP:BLPSPS. I'm unconvinced we should take someone else tweeting Happy Birthday and the person acknowledging it complying with either.

I actually think we've dealt with this before since I seem to recall me or someone saying a lot of what I'm saying here but I couldn't find it in a quick search. Given possibly different timezones etc, the day could be a day before or after even if it was targeting the exact birthday and unless they say they did, we generally can't assume they did. (I live in NZ depending on when I do it, it may easily be the next day for me if I'm wishing someone in the US happy birthday. OTOH, although it's not my style, I don't think it's that weird if I were to wish someone happy birthday when it's their birthday for me even if not for them yet.)

As said, I don't think we should assume that a person is always going to make it clear that they aren't tweeting on the exact birthday either. E.g. I don't think a person is always going to say "sorry I'm late" or "Happy belated birthday" if they're only a day late. In this case we can assume from the phrasing it isn't late. But since they didn't say something like today, I don't think we can assume it was definitely today and they would have said "tomorrow" or something if the birthday was tomorrow not the day they tweeted. Especially without knowing the level of friendship etc, context of the tweet etc which is too OR. (I mean the tweet wasn't seen until nearly 2 weeks later so one possibility is it was intentionally tweeted early so the person is more likely to see it before their birthday.)

An additional point while this isn't directly addressed in BLP but am I the only one uncomfortable with using something someone tweeted when they were 11 as an SPS? Heck even the tweet at 15 concerns me.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about it more, I actually think the timezone issue can be a problem even for the person's tweets. I don't think Twitter actually tells you the local time of the person tweeting. Instead they simply report the time probably in UTC and your browser adjusts it for your local time (or maybe their server does. So we generally have to know what timezone the person was in at the time, at least roughly, to know what date it was. Nil Einne (talk) 08:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
This comes up a lot, and there are always way too many variables and possible interpretations. For example, I never celebrate my birthday on the actual day, except maybe once every seven years. I often celebrate it on the nearest weekend, holiday, or vacation time. While I don't twit or facebook, if I did you wouldn't be able to glean my real birthday from them. Then there's the problem that we can't glean from it that the subject is ok with us publishing the date. Tweeting to your friends is one thing, but that is not in any way giving consent to publish it in an encyclopedia. Further, Nil brings up a great point, because if the subject was a minor at the time of the tweet, they are not even at the age of consent yet, and frankly their brains and social/decision-making skills are still developing, and at that age they really don't know what they will want when they get older. In my opinion, using tweets is doing the work of reporters and other primary source researchers, and exactly because they are primary and so very open to all these interpretation issues, we should never use tweets as sources --at all. Let the secondary sources pick them, interpret them and give their analyses, and then we have something we can use. Zaereth (talk) 09:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I think this Twitter account does not verify this tweet, but it could be risk of WP:BLPPRIVACY. -- (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Previous discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Oliver Braddick[edit]

Not so much a violation, except to report that Braddick died on 17 Jan 2022. I made the changes to the article, with a reference for the news of his death, but cannot remove the biography-of-a-living-person tag. (I guess this is because I am not an administrator.) Please help.--Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 07:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Robert P. O'Shea, I've made the necessary changes. They don't require adminship (I'm not an admin myself), but they can be a bit tricky from a technical point of view for editors who rarely do things involving templates. You may find the script Rater helpful, as it simplifies it to ticking or unticking a couple of checkboxes. Vaticidalprophet 09:01, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know much about templates myself, but I'd keep in mind that BLP policy still applies to the recently deceased, and can apply for up to two years, so I'm not sure if removing the template may be premature at this point. Zaereth (talk) 09:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
BLP application isn't all-or-nothing and aspects of it apply to the recently deceased under many circumstances, but in the case of a relatively uncontentious article whose subject passed away of natural causes I don't think there's a use case for the tag currently. If the article starts having issues, an appropriate tag can easily be added. Either way, the outright "this is a BLP" tag is inappropriate, and for an article like this where the usual issues that cause the distinction are absent it's not too important whether it has no tag or the "this isn't a BLP but aspects of BLP apply" tag. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Dear Vaticidal, Thanks! So it's as simple as deleting (the unnoticed) "Category:Living people" from the list of categories? If so, it's easy once one knows how. I do take seriously the reservations at least one other editor, although it always struck me that there really are only two sorts of people on that criterion: living and dead. Perhaps in Wikipedia there needs to be three categories: Living, recently dead, and deddybones dead. Robert P. O'Shea (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
While I don't see any harm in removing the tag here, I was reminded recently by Wikipedia:Controlling search engine indexing that the tag isn't just a useful way of informing editors and/or keeping track of relevant articles. It also affects whether the talk page is marked as NOINDEX (reducing the chances search engines will index it so make it findable when using the search engine). That said, our treatment of BLP talk pages is still a little weird since while we noindex the talk pages themselves, once they're archived they generally aren't marked as NOINDEX since they lose the header. Nil Einne (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
The latter strikes me as a bigger issue than the former. (Is there any reason not to noindex all of talkspace?) Vaticidalprophet 07:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Ilham Aliyev[edit]

In Ilham Aliyev, there are repeated insertions of claim where the cited source does not even mention Aliyev, yet the claim implies a casual link and his involvement: [15], [16], [17]. Looks like WP:BLPSOURCE violation. Brandmeistertalk 21:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be pretty clear-cut BLP violation. Sourcing is not robust; an opinion piece that is incorrectly used for stating claims in Wikipedia's voice and the source doesn't seem to mention Aliyev's religious policies or even Aliyev.
The biography is under "Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts" discretionary sanctions. I have given a related discretionary sanction alert to Kevo327 – who I think was the only participant who was not made aware of DS. If Kevo327 keeps reverting, I think they should be reported to WP:AE. Politrukki (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I personally think this report is unnecessary, as it has been submitted before I was made aware of what was wrong with the sourcing (if you check the article history), and I haven't edited on the article after actual policy has been cited and I've seen the issue with sourcing. If the issue merits better sources and better placement in the article (other than the religious policy section) we can discuss that in the talk page, which we still haven't commenced. I'd really appreciate it if we attempt to discuss stuff before I get dragged to noticeboards. - Kevo327 (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not correct. You completely ignored talk page discussion, which I started on 21 January, and continued to revert 2 days after your edits were reverted and questioned at the talk page. Not acceptable. Grandmaster 10:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
that talk page that had 1 user commenting besides you (the original reporter here) and BLPSOURCE was cited after I reverted you, then I saw that your concerns had merit and I stopped reverting. The next day before I edit again or join the discussion, I find myself dragged to a noticeboard, without being notified of the fact. Does that encourage discussion to you? Or do you find assuming bad faith acceptable? We edit here on a voluntary basis and differ with the amount of time we are free to edit. I will not revert or add that content back without further discussing the topic and I will do it at my own leisure. - Kevo327 (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
3rvs, no attempt to discuss anything with 2 other editors at talk is not the way one supposed to edit topic area covered by discretionary sanctions. Grandmaster 15:37, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Martin Kulldorff[edit]

Martin Kulldorff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is about a scientist involved in COVID-19 controversies. Help is needed in the article to resolve some two-editor disputes (I am one) about recent additions. We have left some disputed content in the article to avoid edit warring. Some disputed additions involve arguments about COVID-19 that cite sources that don't name Kulldorff (talk page discussion and a proposed change is here). Another dispute is about a Wikivoice description of a 2021 conflict that cites only Kulldorff and one paragraph of an opinion essay, along with sources that don't name him (a proposed change is here). A third question is about recently added language to the first sentence that says he is an epidemiologist, although a secondary source cited in the article asserts he is not. Llll5032 (talk) 04:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

And there are more questions and tags in the article and its talk page. Llll5032 (talk) 05:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Uddhab Bharali[edit]

Basically seems an attempt to bludgeon through Special:Diff/1067782822 by Arunudoy in what appears to be not in spirit of BLPCRIME as per "often widely of concern to the public" which does not seem to apply here; more eloquently put at Special:Diff/1067789674. Per their contribution history Arunudoy seems to wish to contribute in this content area taking as a minimum of an strongly assertive approach. It may be a little early to bring this to the board but may be the best way to bring experts to the discussion. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:28, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Jonathan Fletcher[edit]

Jonathan Fletcher, a living Church of England clergyman, is facing allegations of abuse and been suspended, in effect, but has not been convicted. A recenty created article fails to give the benefit of the doubt to him. Nedrutland (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed in 2 separate edits the lede and section. As its an acussation, it does not seem to meet the burden of WP:BLP. It is possible a briefer version would be acceptable but the lede statement would not be. Also not sure they are actually notable beyond this one event that likely should not be on wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I see it's already been mightily trimmed down. I've added it to my watchlist, and I'm pondering AFD. Thanks to those who trimmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I can see why you cut as you did and why you're considering AFD. He's a significant, but not central, figure within a certain strand of Evangelical Anglican Christianity that was more important in the 80s and 90s than it is today. Without these allegations he would be less significant than his older brother David who doesn't have an article. You can get some idea of the general background from the article at Titus Trust. The allegations themselves have been very widely reported in a range of reliable sources, but as you note never rose to the level of formal charges, and all actions taken so far have been internal church measures. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't see any alternative to AfD. He's not a public figure and once you strip out the WP:BLPCRIME material there's essentially nothing left. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Article creator here again - I respectfully disagree. There is significant coverage of the subject in a number of reliable sources, and an independent review confirmed he was engaged in abusive behaviour. This has to make him notable. Ephesians511 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed references to JF from Anne Atkins and Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon. Nedrutland (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the text of the passage ("Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.") I think we can assume that Ephesians511 is principally here to right great wrongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, article creator here... firstly, the subject attracted considerable coverage in multiple reliable sources (including major non-tabloid newspapers, not just church ones) over a period of almost two years, which should establish notability. I felt an article under the subject's name rather than "Jonathan Fletcher abuse scandal" was more appropriate, as, prior to the scandal, he was an important figure who was known far beyond his own church. This was mentioned in many of the references I cited. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies as the event (ie the abuse scandal) was significant, as demonstrated by the large amount of press coverage. Secondly, regarding neutrality and WP:BLP issues, I would point out that the subject himself admitting to carrying out beatings, and I cited a source and quoted an extract to make that clear. In addition, a detailed independent review concluded that the behaviour occurred and constituted serious abuse. Again, I cited this and quoted an extract, which included the fact that the subject has not been criminally charged or convicted. This is a slightly unusual case in that someone has committed abuse towards adults but the police have not considered it to be a criminal matter. None of the sources suggest that the abuse did not happen. There are different types of wrongdoing (including abuse) and not everything is criminal. In these circumstances, I think it would contravene MOS:ALLEGED to use words like "alleged", as they create doubt which does not exist (according to the sources). I did try hard to make sure I presented everything from a NPOV and every sentence had a reference to a reliable source. I will await responses before editing the article. Ephesians511 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As no-one has responded to my comment above, I will do some editing on the article. I plan to return it largely to how it was, but to address the issues identified by others. Ephesians511 (talk)
You should not do that. See all of the discussion above, and read WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Firstly, you reverted my changes whilst I was mid-edit. Please could you give me the chance to fix the article. Regarding the content in the lede you reverted, it said
In 2019, it was reported that complaints of "spiritual abuse" and "naked beatings" had been made against him. Whilst he was not charged with, or found guilty of, any criminal offences, an independent review published in 2021 found that he had engaged in a range of harmful behaviours.
That was a good faith attempt to fix the concerns identified above. The first sentence about complaints were referenced with articles in the Daily Telegraph and Church Times, both reliable sources. The second sentence included a clear statement that there was no criminality involved (so BLP:CRIME is not engaged. However, an independent review from a recognised safeguarding charity found the subject was "engaged in a range of harmful behaviours" and that has to count as a reliable source. Overall, I believe the lede represented the sources from a NPOV. Ephesians511 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
They are accusations of criminal conduct against a person who is otherwise not notable. If the only reliable secondary sources you can find deal with the accusations then the article should not even exist, and the accusations certainly should not be in the article while it's waiting for deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I am shocked at the failure to understand BLP shown here. Stop all the whitewashing. This deletion of properly-sourced content is especially worrying. (Here's a small part of it and this isn't all the abuse:

This section of the scope focuses on harmful behaviour and demonstrates evidence of spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths. There is also a serious incident involving a sexual act performed in front of someone that has been reported. The impact of these behaviours on a number of individuals caused harm and many will live with this impact in the long term. SOURCE:[1]

It is only "unsourced" negative content that is a BLP concern, not such properly-sourced content. I see a concerted effort to delete properly sourced content about his proven abuses. The parallels to a similar article are interesting, and it is also undergoing whitewashing: John Smyth (barrister). These deletions are improper and reveal an abuse of BLP. We are supposed to document these things if they are mentioned in more than a couple RS, and they certainly are. See WP:Public figure. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a vicar meets the threshold for being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The number of RS dealing with this makes him a notable public figure. Without that he's just a public figure. This isn't just about one event, but a pattern of abuse over many years. -- Valjean (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Sources don't make someone a public figure, they make someone notable. Someone with a high rank in the clergy, or a position as a spokesperson would be a public figure, but being the vicar of a parish doesn't meet that bar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
People also become notable for other reasons than their position. This man's long pattern of abuse made him notable. We're not dealing with someone notable only for a single event. That would be different. -- Valjean (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Alleged long pattern of abuse, which is allegations with no convictions against someone who isn't a public figure or otherwise notable. That's the kind of thing we don't document. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Convictions are not always necessary, especially when other investigations have proven the abuse. Even if there were no such evidence, the fact that the accusations have been so public makes this a matter covered by the principle behind WP:Public figure, and the air should be cleared by exposure of the facts, not burying and whitewashing them. That's what we do here. This is part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document, as long as it's found in RS, and this is. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
That's not how being a public figure works. A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society. A local vicar is does meet that threshold. I know that quote is from Wikipedia, and thus isn't reliable, so there's also A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety.[18] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
That his "career" was impacted by the allegations does need to be documented, but there's far far too much detail and pull quotes to support that section, particularly with the unclear conclusion that was made. There's maybe a 3-4 sentence paragraph from all that, not the major section there. --Masem (t) 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It's currently difficult to assess this because of all the whitewashing going on. Lots of properly sourced content has been removed. Whitewashing is one of the most egregious types of NPOV violation there is. It needs to stop. How we deal with the accusations, the findings that document the offenses, etc. is a matter for us to deal with, but deletion of the article isn't a proper resolution, and neither is the complete hagiography we see now. -- Valjean (talk)
The only RS I see is one Telegraph article. --Masem (t) 17:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
That's because of the whitewashing. Just this one diff (then deleted in a gross act of whitewashing, so check the next diff) shows other RSes. -- Valjean (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Valjean, If you have an accusation to make then make it at ANI. There was no white washing. There was complying with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:DUE. Now kindly stick to the topic and not make another acussation of other editors motives, especially clueless and uninformed ones as you have done several times in this thread and AfD. Slywriter (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow! Don't personalize this. Whitewashing is a commonly used description for deletions of properly-sourced content and sources when it leaves only one side of the issue visible, and the article looks like a hagiography. That's also a violation of NPOV. Motives do not have to be an issue, just different understandings of how to apply policies, and that's what we're discussing here. So please stick to content and not the motives of editors. -- Valjean (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
It's a loaded term that implies intentional censorship, but we will go with your definition of relating it to content. Regardless, the article looks like a hagiography because he shouldn't have an article in the first place and the only BLP compliant information is rather boring and unencyclopedic details.Slywriter (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, I was looking at the RSes in that diff, but I see there's more sources outside of that diff from the Telegraph that relate to it. But the PDFs are definitely not RSes in terms of "wide coverage" aspects here. The only source we have covering this is the Telegraph at this point, even with multiple articles. --Masem (t) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Walking With's home page clearly makes them self-published (and with an axe to grind). Anything to do with them, negative or otherwise, is completely out per WP:BLPSPS. FDW777 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC) [19] also doesn't seem to be acceptable for claims about a BLP. The Christian Today source[20] is identified as commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The Final Review is certainly a RS.[1] We could easily source it to Thirtyone:eight, which is "the UK's only independent Christian safeguarding charity." Lessons learnt review concerning Jonathan Fletcher and Emmanuel Church Wimbledon . -- Valjean (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The Final Review is the equivalent of a judicial document and while we can use that to state a final conclusion (such as if they convicted him), we should not be sourcing that without help of a reliable third party to make claims about SPS. That charity is not a reliable RS for that purpose. We'd want something like the Telegraph to quote the Final Review to include such quotes within our article, otherwise it allows WP editors to pick and chose language to make the BLP as ugly or as clean as they want. --Masem (t) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
That's correct. -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I can't see how an "independent review" cannot be a reliable source in these circumstances. It's not self-published, either - the website that hosts it is not the author. And any extract has to be an accurate summary of what it concluded. But was picked up by the media, and I can add cites for that. Ephesians511 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
You cannot use any documents hosted by self-published sources for claims about living people. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@FDW777: This is not true, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. ––FormalDude talk 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it is true in the current context. Since the websites in question are not run by Fletcher, they cannot be used for any claims about him. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, we'd need to find a secondary RS and summarize what they say about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
The press releases in PDF format are from the church and diocese, which count as reliable primary sources, allowed under WP:PRIMARY point 3. They support the secondary sources from major news media (Church Times as well as Telegraph, I have others to add). The independent review is a reliable secondary source, no matter what website it is on. 18:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Ephesians511 (talk)
Also, I found a better quote from the review (p.89) which is crystal clear: (emphasis mine)
From the evidence-gathering process of this Review, it is clear that JF engaged in a range of harmful behaviours that have been experienced by a number of people, through demonstrative accounts including a serious sexual act performed in front of another person, spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, and forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths. The impact of these behaviours on a number of individuals has understandably caused great harm and many will live with this impact in the long-term.
I did include that in my edit today that got reverted.
Also note that BLP:CRIME is not involved. That doesn't mean we can't include the above finding of harm/abuse as it comes from a WP:RS. As far as WP:DUE is concerned, all the sources are about the subject's abuse. I was planning to include a statement from him to give full balance, but it's hard to edit when your work keeps getting reverted! Ephesians511 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
WP:NOR does not operate in isolation from WP:BLP. If BLP says something can't be used, that's it, period. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I cannot see how anything I have ever added to this article amounted to original research. Some BLP concerns had been identified which I was going to fix before this edit war started.Ephesians511 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
What?! You are the editor who said allowed under WP:PRIMARY point 3. WP:PRIMARY is part of WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BLPUNDEL, I have repaired the content that ScottishFinnishRadish removed for BLP objections. I believe my version is policy compliant. ––FormalDude talk 18:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    I think the Christian Today source is a no-go, as it's clearly labeled as commentary, and does not seem to be an acceptable source for claims about a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Just so others know, those sources were not part of the BLP objections, they were just additional sources I added afterwards.
    @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'll remove the Christian Today source due to being op-ed. I'll need some evidence as to why The Living Church is not acceptable, as it seems reliable and independent. ––FormalDude talk 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    This doesn't inspire confidence about No editorial or fact checking policy, and a definite non-news objective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    This says As publishers, teachers, and servant leaders, we pledge ourselves to produce excellent independent news reporting, incisive commentary, and edifying scholarship for a broad audience of thoughtful Christians. It seems to me they're a well-established publisher. It doesn't look like The Living Church has ever been discussed at WP:RSN, so we may wish to do that. ––FormalDude talk 19:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    And there's no visible difference between independent news reporting, incisive commentary, and edifying scholarship. There's no visible difference between this and this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    There is a visible difference, the former is tagged as news while the latter is tagged as a feature. ––FormalDude talk 19:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I only used the Christian Today ref to confirm that (1) the subject was an influential leader (2) the subject has an elder brother also in Christian ministry, and (3) that there were parallels with another related case of an abusive church leader. I can't see how that is problematic, and "commentary" is consistent with WP:SECONDARY - A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. It's not an WP:SPS and the author is a christian journalist so hopefully an expert. I never added but it strikes me as a reliable secondary source Ephesians511 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Regardless of sourcing, that writeup is definitely more appropriate to what should summarize the sources given the lack of more mainstream coverage. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
    Concur. I still think that the article should be deleted, but at least it's not a full-on hit piece now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Phil Anselmo[edit]

in the beginning of the article it says "Anselmo is regarded as one of the greatest frontmen in metal history,[3][4][5][6] known for being particularly animated and donning a machismo attitude that became emblematic of the general theme of Pantera." it is an opinion that he is animated, and it is frankly not true or additive to the article, it would be better if it was something like "Anselmo is regarded as one of the greatest frontmen in metal history,[3][4][5][6] known for donning a machismo attitude that became emblematic of the general theme of Pantera." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources in that sentence mention Anselmo being "particularly animated"—but they also don't mention the "machismo attitude". I'm no expert but I've seen a handful of videos and both statements seem obvious to me. I will note that there's been no discussion about this at Talk:Phil Anselmo. I suggest starting a thread there, where editors would presumably be more familiar with sourcing. Woodroar (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Narcis Tacau[edit]

Hello, BLPN regulars,

I don't frequent this noticeboard and I hope that editors who review pages like this can give a definite thumbs up or thumbs down on this article. My sense is that this article should be deleted, as the entire focus is negative, but I wanted to hear from you all about whether the Guardian article about the sexual abuse allegations is sufficient to mention them or if multiple reliable sources are called for in this situation. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 02:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As it stands it is an attack page with reports of allegations but no convictions. I suggest it be deleted until criminal convictions are revealed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
Nope. My motivation t write this articel was not to attack Narcis Tacau, but the reports of and accusations of sexual assault are obvers. So, there is no way to hide them. But I will work on the point, that there has been no conviction. --Bestof2022 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
If you continue not to follow WP:BLPCRIME you could be blocked from editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC).
Instead of threaten me, it would make more sence to rewrite the articel in WP:BLPCRIME confirm way!--Bestof2022 (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz, can you help me in discribing, what I can improve in the named articel. Thanks, best --Bestof2022 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That article should absolutely be G10'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I had tagged it as a G10 because it seemed like an attack page since it was completely focused on the accusations of sexual assaults, rather than as a biography of the person. I could not find any reports of a conviction. I see now that the article is tagged for notability. Netherzone (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't brought it to AfD is that I'm waiting to see if it gets G10'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Have to agree I don't think there's a salvagable article nor is one possible and it would be best just to G10 it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcis Tacau. The G10 was removed (which is how we landed here), and the article has been stubbed, so I've erred to the side of a nomination. Vaticidalprophet 02:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Javonte Green[edit]

I'm not seeing the Montenegro connection. What's up with that? Thanks, Dean Ennes — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Mercola[edit]

Valjean has reverted my removal of an article by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch from Joseph Mercola [21]. Per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Quackwatch and the 2019 RfC, articles written by Stephen Barrett on Quackwatch are self-published. Valjean justified the restoration of content by saying When attributed to Barrett, the statement is perfectly fine as he's a subject matter expert, and his attributed opinions can be cited just like any other attributed opinion. I read WP:BLPSPS as prohibiting all content from self-published sources being used on BLP articles. Can I have a second opinion? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. is pretty clear. There is no caveat for the opinions of experts published in SPS. WP:RSOPINION says There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I forgot to mention this, but I believe WP:Parity comes into play for fringe topics, and Mercola is definitely fringe. Isn't this a legit exception? -- Valjean (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. The article already has Chicago Magazine, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, UMASS Law Review, The Guardian, etc. We're not dealing with a WP:PARITY situation because we already have better quality sources dunking all over the guy like Shaq dunking on the entire New York Nets. We have four ((4)IV)) primary sourced FDA letters telling him to stop saying his supplements cure things. That is the parity of sourcing, as normally we wouldn't be including primary sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
You're right. I got tunnel vision. -- Valjean (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Glad to see these Barrett-related disputes getting resolved quickly. The COVID pandemic has created much more interest in quakery and health-related conspiracies, resulting in better coverage that we've had in the past. Hopefully we can use the new references now available where before we used Barrett. --Hipal (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand, but Barrett still gives the best coverage and plenty of RS. -- Valjean (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

moshe reuven azman[edit]

after a look online i saw that ukraine had a chief Rabbi of ukraine until 2008 (rabbi azriel chaykin) (Hebrew Wikipedia [1]) and al the rabbis in ukrain went against him saying that hi is the rabbi of ukrain

(Hebrew jewish news[2])  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zach own (talkcontribs) 22:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC) 

Dan DiMicco[edit]

In the interest of transparency I am writing this on behalf of Dan DiMicco to resolve an issue with accuracy on the article about him. I hope someone can help resolve this issue and thanks in advance for taking the time!

The article on Dan DiMicco currently lacks the sources to support some of the more provocative claims in the article. The current wording in the Charlotte Independence section of the page summarises issues which arose in response to DiMicco’s activity on twitter. I have a few concerns about the current wording of the article which I hope can be resolved without making radical changes.

Firstly, this section is worded to suggest that DiMicco holds racist views, a claim which demands better sourcing on a BLP. While there was a reaction to the twitter activity that DiMicco posted, the source tweets are not available online, and there is no reliable source which confirms they spread racist conspiracy theories. Currently, the only sources provided do not contain the original, unaltered material in question, and are of varying quality as citations. I looked into other available sources which have a confirmed editorial process and these sources only confirm that the tweets spread misinformation on the riots, Covid, and 2021 election, not that they contained explicitly racist content (see and ). Even if we do take the claims of messages about Soros, Antifa, and the CCP at face value, these are not races but a person, organisation and a political party, and to conflate the disinformation spread as racist is to mischaracterise the beliefs DiMicco actually holds.

Secondly, there is technically no official supporters’ group (though various fan groups do exist) and the statements/actions they have taken are only supported by citations from twitter, which is not usually a strong enough source to be the only citation. The reactions to these tweets indicate that they didn’t draw much engagement, so some of the supporter groups’ actions should be removed on notability grounds.

I am not looking to dramatically change the article, but my suggested rewording for the section is below:

In 2018, DiMicco bought a majority stake in the soccer club Charlotte Independence, that plays in the USL Championship, the second tier of the American soccer pyramid.[7] Following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, DiMicco sent out a series of tweets about the protests blaming subsequent riots on "Antifa", George Soros and the Chinese Communist Party. DiMicco was also accused of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and false claims of election fraud. Some supporters of the club responded strongly to these statements, with the Independent Supporters Council issuing a statement urging the league to "take action" against him.[8] [and add as a further source]
On March 29, 2021, the club announced that several owners, including DiMicco, were "in the process" of selling their ownership stakes[9] but appear "in no rush" to do so.[10]

Please do compare it to the original and let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your time and I hope the above satisfies Wikipedia’s need for unbiased, neutral content. Floresfire (talk) 13:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Financial Times source, but that, the Bizjournals source and this ESPN piece are probably the only sources fit for use in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I tweaked the article based on the Financial Times source (which I could read), the ESPN source, and this one from The Athletic. Only minor changes were needed. I would disagree with several of the changes suggested above, such as adding weasel wording such as 'was also accused of' and referring to the protests as 'riots'. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I made a bit of an adjustment after your edits, using ESPN as the source for the backlash from some supporters and the Independent Supporters Council, rather than just the ISC tweet. I also dropped the appear "in no rush" from the last sentence, since it didn't seem to add much. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Quick note, the below citations look to be in reference to a different request above, so I'll just add in a break Floresfire (talk) 13:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


List of stage names[edit]

List of stage names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Wikipedia's "List of stage names"

I have in my PC about 18000 stage names + birth names, i.e. approximately twice as much as are listed now on Wikipedia. What is the best way to upload this, because it would mean that the present list would have to be deleted.

Also, by uploading this list, which does include names of 'celebrities' that are deceased, there are a few things that would immediately be resolved, i.e. my list is purely alphabetical, whereas the Wikipedia list that is now viewable is not. It does not have an A or B or C list. It is one long list, alphabetically sorted on the surname of the celebrity's stage name, or when only one single name is used, this name is within the alphabetical order. Within the list that is shown at present on Wikipedia, there are a few mistakes. These do not appear in my list.

So, what can you recommend I should do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthechief (talkcontribs) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be for the best if you added them to the existing list in small groups, making sure to cite each entry to a reliable source. Also, this should probably be discussed at Talk:List of stage names, rather than this noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)