Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

• 92.19.46.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

extremely concerning abuse of wikipedia rules, user 92.19.46.45 has committed blatant libel and argues they do not need to source their claims that mr robinson is an "international terrorist". as well as this, there are currently discussions in the talk page that the lead is also in violation of multiple rules based on ideological reasons. in lieu of this, an upgrade in protection status is not only warranted but urgently needed in my opinion. below are three of their statements:

   Given that its crimes in multiple countries are considered terrorism, a better start to the article would be.
   <Convicted international terrorist Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK’s most dangerous far-right terrorists.>
   We cannot deny that it has committed some serious offences. And even if a reliable source for its terrorist atrocities doesn't currently exist, then one can be made to cite the article after it is edited to make such a declaration. Then we'd have a reliable source to cite, improving the validity of the assertion. It's not like anyone can prove it isn't a terrorist, so that's good enough to strengthen the article. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

blatant defamation that is in violation of wikipedia rules, warranting the user being permanently banned

Is there any need to give far right conspiracy theories legitimacy while describing the behaviour of vermin? It's like one of its subhuman supporters got to this page and edited those in just to protect a fellow member of its kind. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

the user is clearly incapable of impartiality

Present any video evidence you have in your possession or sources that have indisputable proof, things that nobody could possibly argue were doctored, or stop spreading conspiracy theories as fact. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

this last statement is in regards to the user in violation believing that a UK court room finding dozens of men guilty of beating, drugging, and raping 1000s of working class girls not to be sufficient evidence to argue robinson exposed a crime (Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale child sex abuse ring and the Huddersfield grooming gang). they wish to instead remove it until they are (to my potentially and hopefully incorrect understanding) personally provided a video of a child being gangraped. i believe the user may have ulterior, and frankly illegal, motives and should be reported to the police. i would like to encourage moderators to review the discussion personally, as i fear i may have misinterpreted this, but i think it is quite clear what is being asked. if i have misread, i apologise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotQualified (talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

BLP applies to talk pages so the IP shouldn't have said that, and looking at their history Special:Contributions/92.19.46.45, I think someone who can deal with responses probably should have a stern word with them or frankly since they've already been told to cut it out, perhaps even a block might be already merited. But to suggest they need to reported to the police is seriously over the top, and violates WP:NLT to boot. Nil Einne (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well I said something to the IP even gave a CTOP alert given the IP seems to have been around for 3 months. However as implied by my first post, it's unlikely I can deal with any followups. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

UK court rooms are not evidence, they are a places where evidence is presented as part of a case against persons on trial.Let's just assume that you do have this "proof" on your person/computer and "just don't feel like showing it." Don't worry, I believe you. 89.240.226.91

the user in question is back with their idiosyncratic broken english, lack of an account, and sheer reality denialism NotQualified (talk) 20:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Piotr Glas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Possible BLP vio. Original post by two anons here 25 July 24. A third anon removed "fundamentalist", which has been their since the article's creation. A fourth anon edited / removed questionable content, plus more, giving the current state (diff). Bot and a registered made minor edits in that diff. The fourth anon, 17:46, made no edit summaries nor communicated on their talk page and was blocked 1 week by Drmies. I and Aintabli restored the original edits. Current state is without questionable content plus edits the fourth anon made.
Should this be on the article?
Sources. Not too many found that I thought RS. The first source (below) was added with the original post. I added the second. The third and fourth I found later but did not add.

• "Man charged with sexual offences". States of Jersey Police. Archived from the original on 20 June 2024. Retrieved 30 June 2024.</ref>
• "Former Jersey Catholic priest charged with 10 historic sexual offences against a child on island". ITV. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 25 June 2024. Retrieved 29 June 2024.
• "Polski ksiądz oskarżony o ataki seksualne na dzieci. Angielska diecezja potwierdza" [Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors]. Rzeczpospolita (in Polish). 24 June 2024. Archived from the original on 24 June 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
• "Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors". Polskie Radio. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 11 July 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thank you Adakiko (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Adakiko, well, it seems like it is up to us. I just pruned a bunch of stuff--a lot of this material was like fanclub stuff, with YouTube sourcing, poorly written and not to the point. We should, however, be aware of further disruption. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Forgot to include pagelinks... Adakiko (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Disappearance of Jay Slater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is about a British teenager that went missing in Tenerife a month ago, and whose body appears to have been found today (unconfirmed). Per WP:BDP, BLP likely still applies. I've just taken out reference to the missing person's alleged past "legal" issues which had been used to link with social media speculation/conspiracy theories about the disappearance, utilizing SYNTHy sources. Helpful if there were more eyes on this. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article is semi-protected from 7/9 to 7/23. IMO, looks like there is still too much inappropriate speculation/rumors/comparisons in it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – notwally (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

As far as I'm concerned the whole thing is really NOTNEWS. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree, this is just ghoulish & with no encyclopedic value. Bon courage (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree. I'm also concerned about some of the BLP aspects of the content of this talk page post. Views? DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not sure whether to bring this one here or COIN, but on balance it's BLP concerns. Pshakhasraw (talk · contribs) has made edits to Shanaz Ibrahim Ahmed. Here's a diff of their most recent changes, which are a reversion of my revert of their original changes. I had reverted them because, when I checked the references, I found that in several places the refs did not support the statements they were supposed to reference. I set out some examples of this on the editor's Talk page; here's a diff. I had already posted to the editor's Talk page about a possible CoI, as the image of the subject they had uploaded is tagged own work. They had not responded to this, so I asked them to reply and not to edit the article again until they had. They then reverted my revert, so I've brought it here. As I've said on their Talk page, some of the refs they have added would improve the article, but only if they were actually used to support statements for which they provide evidence. There was definitely room for expansion in the earlier version, but I don't think it helps anyone for it to be in a state where evidence is muddled in this way.

I'll let Pshakhasraw know I have posted over here; it would be good to hear from them. Tacyarg (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Michel DeGraff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I've discovered that the past several months of edits on the page of this contentious (at least at MIT) figure have been carried out entirely by the subject of the page. These are additions, not deletions of misinformation, and seem subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.227.34 (talk) 21:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I cleaned up the article a bit and removed the embedded external links along with some of the unsourced content, including this former gem: "Really, language is a powerful tool for decolonization and liberation, as it is for colonization and domination!" – notwally (talk) 03:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• El Hotzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

German satirist who said he wished Trump had been killed, which is legal in the U.S. but may or may not be illegal in Germany. A rare case of major media attention for a living person whose biography is an orphan. I've removed the only glaring BLPvio I saw, but it would be good to get some more pagewatchers at least. And maybe someone can find a way to deörphan. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added to a "Notable people" section of his hometown. Watchlisted. I don't have an opinion on the current version, which is at least not obviously undue. For similar reasons, it would be nice to have more eyes on Lea DeLaria. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is deörphan a term we use? I like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: User:Tamzin/The diaeresis. Join us! -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. But I think I'll stick to using ö when the word is spelled that way, like "ö". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added to List of German-language comedians. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

IP editor added unsourced and potentially libelous content to article for Ali B, since has been reverted, see changes, changes, changes and changes. --Trade (talk) 14:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Neither unsourced nor libelous. He was convicted of rape and sentenced to two years in prison. The final paragraph of the lead summarizes the criminal cases against him and has cited sources. However, that does not mean it is appropriate to add "convicted rapist" to the short description or the first sentence. – notwally (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now that McLaurin has weighed in on J.D. Vance's selection as Donald Trump's running mate, his page has been minorly vandalized at least once. If there is a way to flag it to be watched for malicious edits while still allowing regular factual updates, it might be good to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.19.174 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is no way to "flag" articles as such, but bringing it to a well-trafficked noticeboard like this is a good way to get eyes on it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 17:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The list says this was a school shooting. The article it links to says it happened on a sidewalk. All of the articles I have found say it did not happen at the school and therefore should be removed. https://www.newspapers.com/image/461582737/?match=1&terms=Edward%20Sims https://www.newspapers.com/image/462128553/?match=1&terms=Edwin%20Sims — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:c71:8160:2c09:66b8:8f4:843 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please link to the appropriate article. It appears this is List of school shootings in the United States (before 2000) Meters (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not an issue for this board. Please raise it on the article's talk page, or just remove it yourself. Meters (talk) 06:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Kajsa Ekis Ekman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some year ago I first noticed how someone had been editing Ekman’s biography on Wikipedia, in multiple languages, seemingly to undermine her position, by minimizing her work (omitting that she works as an author) and describing her as some kind of troublemaker, focusing on a handful of controversies (which honestly should be part of any person’s life who participates in public debate?). The description in the English version makes it seem Ekman’s sole topic is gender issues, when in reality she is just as likely to debate local, national and international political issues but also history, economics and literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.117.145 (talk) 21:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

At a glance, Kajsa Ekis Ekman does not seem to (currently) omit she is an author. If the article is well-written per for example WP:BLP and WP:NPOV is another question, and I have no opinion on that atm. You can read WP:TUTORIAL and start editing, or you can make specific suggestions regarding sourcing, wording, WP:PROPORTION etc at Talk:Kajsa Ekis Ekman. The article is supposed to be a summary of independent WP:RS about her.

Here on en-WP we only deal with issues on en-WP, the same goes for sv-WP etc. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mellk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) returns [5] negative designation "far-right" to the lead while providing only one source and no info on it in article body.

Other sources do not regard the person as such Gunman wounds nationalist former parliamentarian in Ukraine's Lviv | Reuters . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is already mentioned that she was with a far-right party and idolized Stepan Bandera. There is nothing controversial about the far-right label. Even Ukrainian sources do not dispute this label.[6] Mind you this is from the same editor who disputed that Bandera collaborated with the Nazis. Mellk (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's the only source used to support the designation, and it is not enough.
already mentioned that she was with a far-right party and idolized Stepan Bandera
Well that's not the text you added to the lead. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contentious labels should only be used in Wikipedia's voice if they are widely used by reliable sources per MOS:LABEL. If many sources are using the label, then cite them in the article or discuss them on the talk page. Per WP:ONUS, the content should not be included unless consensus can be reached for its inclusion. – notwally (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

"... the leadership of the party, including Tiahnybok, Iryna Farion, and Iurii Mykhailyshyn, admire Donstov and share his anti-Semitic and fascistic views."[7] The Reuters source calls her nationalist anyway. There was no reason given for removing "nationalist". Mellk (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mind you this is from the same editor who disputed that Bandera collaborated with the Nazis.
Somebody to shield me from such a violation of Wikipedia:Personal attacks? ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is not a personal attack when that is precisely what you disputed at the top of the talk page on that article. This is another claim of personal attacks without merit.[8] Mellk (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not the contributors WP:PA . ManyAreasExpert (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You pinged me along with all user links at the very start of this topic you just created at the BLP noticeboard, talk about not making discussions personalized. Now, can you explain the removal of "nationalist" when your own source says this (along with the already provided source)? Mellk (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I'm unsure as to why calling a politician who was a member of a far-right party "far-right" is contentious? Anyway, New York Times Divisive Far-Right Politician in Ukraine Is Fatally Shot, or Kyiv Post Iryna Farion, a linguist and far-right former politician... and there are many more. However, the epithet "ultra-nationalist" and similar do seem to be used in place of "far-right" in many places. Black Kite (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The objection is from the fact that none of that is in the article. If content justifying its use with multiple sources is included in the body, then it wouldn't be an issue. However, I don't think including "far-right" as a label in the lead sentence cited to a single source with nothing addressing it in the body complies with MOS:LABEL. – notwally (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    There is now additional detail about the nationalist/far-right label in the body. Do you oppose the "far-right" label still? Alternatively it may be possible to use "ultranationalist". Mellk (talk) 00:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    I'm concerned that the three cited sources describing the article subject as "far-right" appear to be basically the only sources that use that term, at least for English-language sources. I'm not sure where the claim that "there are many more" sources using the term "far-right" comes from, because I can only find a law student paper [9] and a German public broadcaster, Deutsche Welle [10]. The only other sources I could find are reprints of the NYT article. Similarly, only the Kyiv Post and Kyiv Independent appear to use the term "ultranationalist", and they are the same sources using the term "far-right". On the other hand, "nationalist" appears to be a widely used term in numerous high quality sources. While I think "far-right" with its sourcing is appropriate in the body, I don't think the same can be said for the lead when the overwhelming majority of sources do not use that term and instead use different descriptors for the article subject's political views. At this point, it seems like this is more an issue of WP:DUE than a BLP violation. – notwally (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Then what about keeping "nationalist" but referring to the party as far-right? Even those sources that do not call her explicitly a far-right politician, still refer to her as being a member of a far-right party. Mellk (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    Why use the term "far-right" when even the Svoboda (political party) page does not use that term as the primary descriptor, instead mentioning it along with several others? According to Reuters, "Expert opinions on Svoboda in particular are divided." [11] The fact that it appears the term "far-right" is one of the preferred terms of the Russian government also gives me pause. "Nationalist" certainly seems appropriate. It may be more helpful to the reader to explain some of this in prose, similar to the Svoboda party article, rather than trying to force it into the lead sentence as the primary descriptor of the article subject. – notwally (talk) 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    "Expert opinions on Svoboda" are divided on whether it is a fascist party or not, as the source says. Far-right is not disputed.[12] Regardless, ultranationalism falls under far-right politics. "One of the preferred terms of the Russian government" -- Svoboda now is a minor party with little influence these days so if you are concerned that this will falsely paint Ukraine as a neo-Nazi state, then you are sorely mistaken. The issue here is that "nationalist" is not precise. As mentioned in the Reuters article you linked, opinions vary from radical nationalist i.e. ultranationalist to neo-fascist. Mellk (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

    In addition, propaganda sites like RT call her a neo-Nazi, if you are wondering what the "preferred terms" are. Mellk (talk) 13:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I generally always oppose the use of the term "far-right" (or far-left, for that matter) as a label in the first sentence of biographies. The term is largely meaningless as a descriptor due to how broad it is, as opposed to ideologies which have specific definitions. Curbon7 (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

In response to an editor citing an article in The Economist on Talk:Cass Review, editor VintageVernacular added text that constitutes a negative personal attack on the author of that Economist article that I feel breaches BLP. There's an insinuation there that I'm not going to repeat. Our Wikipedia article on this author doesn't mention this. I removed it. But VintageVernatular has put it back. Even without the BLP violation concerns, the comment adds nothing to the discussion, so I think should be removed entirely and the editor enlightened about our policies. This is a contentious topic article. Thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 09:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Actually it did add to the discussion, seeing as I was questioning the credibility of the writer (who has a Wikipedia article, and despite being published in an economics journal he is not a scientist but rather holds a degree in "public affairs") being cited to judge scientific rigor. I represented his claim one hundred percent accurately (as you may have seen if you followed his blog link he attached to the post I cited), which is not a negative personal attack. Colin on the other hand has been repeatedly reducing the expertise of a neuroscience postdoc on that talk page to that of a "monkey researcher" based on their publication of one or two papers to that effect, make of that what you will. VintageVernacular (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Singal appears to be referring to this article by Herzog where she's saying that Epstein isn't a pedophile in the strict sense. This is 'true', but the counter argument would be the common usage and meaning of pedophile is correct in general discourse. So he not saying that Epstein isn't what would generally be called a pedophile, but that he isn't in the medical diagnostic sense. Or rather he is pointing out that Herzog saying that isn't untrue. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I question whether even that is a "mainstream scientific opinion" rather than a taxonomy proposed by a small milieu of sexologists mostly out of one institution, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (and even in that taxonomy, he may be quite wrong based on some testimonies about JE). Though that's not what was being contested. What I said was accurate to the point of fair comment. He's written quite a few articles, blog posts about this general topic, spoken on his podcast about it. Frankly, Colin assuming my comment was a likely BLP violation only highlights that Singal makes such highly controversial assertions about scientific consensus, that it warranted my questioning his capability to judge scientific rigor. VintageVernacular (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

wp:blp mostly applies to articles not talkspace

in general as long as your not doxxing someone and publishing there address or something, you can discuss sourcing on talkspace.

do not revert talkspace. see wp:tpo. there are times you can revert it but this was not it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The opening sentence at WP:BLP: Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. Schazjmd (talk) 14:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

ah well damn i should read a bit more.

ahh, i think wp:BLPTALK applies more here. in general, i think bonafide discussions about what is appropriate should not be censored on talk page. and the claim had at lease one link if im looking at diff that supported it.

i know the proof of burden of including the claim on article space is a bit higher but we shouldnt stop talking about whether someone is an appropriate source on talk page just because we think we will hurt someones reputation on the off chance a random reader stops by the talk page Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Contentious claims about living person even in relation to their use as a source, still need to back up by a source. If it isn't in our article, editors really should provide sources. But also challenging someone's use as a source should never be a free for all. For example, if we are using person A as a source on whether an exoplanet can sustain life, it's unlikely to be appropriate for an editor to say we shouldn't use person A as a source because they're a racist. I mean I don't personally likely using racists as source either, but it's of very limited value in determining if someone can be trusted on whether an exoplanet might sustain life. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that someone's character has implications on whether they can be trusted as a source. If you say enough stupid things, people aren't going to listen to you on anything. And are you saying VintageVernacular didn't back up their claim? Singal's tweet was linked in the comment. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 07:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Economist writes in an institutional voice, without attribution to its journalists as individuals, which makes the personal tweets of its contributors extra-specially irrelevant. I’m not sure the offending edit rises to be strictly libellous, but it’s a really low-quality smear, both in the sense of being wrong (because despite the word being hurled freely at political enemies, it does have an actual medical meaning which Singal was completely correct to point out), and in the sense that contentious topics talk pages need higher standards of discourse than “this source is unreliable because it’s associated with someone who wrote a tweet 5 years ago about someone else who wrote an article which contained something I disagreed with.” Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is Singal a doctor capable of performing medical (non-)diagnoses without directly examining a subject? Further a 2020 lawsuit alleged Epstein abused girls at least as young as 11, and one accuser states he wanted "as young as I could find them". Singal's lack of medical expertise may already be reason enough to question his reliability as a source on medical matters. But I can see why that doesn't apply in at least some cases. So if I were to drive the point home, him making these kinds of brazen declarations on medicine well outside his purview, would be one thing to point to, as I did. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is quite reasonable to state that someone is not a pedophile in the medical sense if there has been no medical diagnosis of pedophilia. You don't need to be a doctor to notice that no doctor has made that diagnosis. You also don't need to be a doctor to write an article in the Economist about an organisation trying to gatekeep potentially-unfavourable research findings. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see a violation of BLP here, since VV's comment doesn't contain any accusations against Singal, merely a difference of opinion. For the same reason, though, it's not really a useful comment. It shouldn't have been made, shouldn't have been removed, shouldn't have been restored, and shouldn't have been brought here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with all of this and would also like to add that I am quite sure that it's possible to question Singal's credibility in a way that is itself more credible. Our own article on him is approximately 50% controversy over articles he's written on transgender topics, which at least seems to me to be more relevant to an article he wrote on transgender topics. Loki (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

To read that post as someone saying "Here's some random point I merely happen to have a difference of opinion about" is remarkable. To my reading there's a very clear and gratuitous insinuation, and that's a clear BLP violation. The post is nothing about "Oh the author got x wrong so maybe they are wrong about y too". Nor was it an invitation to have a nuanced discussion of the exact meaning of a medical term. It's a smearing personal attack in my view and reading it otherwise seems to require an awful lot of effort.

I posted here to get fresh opinions from folk that knew about the policy (ie. not a "not talk pages" response) and from people who weren't already at war with each other on the talk page of the article itself, who have just brought all that baggage to this page. -- Colin°^Talk 07:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is restating his claim a "smear"? I could have elaborated my points in a back-and-forth fashion if I wasn't shut down instantly. Is it acceptable to scrutinize the individual credibility and record of published scientists, but not journalists? How would we come to such a standard? Between that talk page and this section, we've somehow arrived at that station. (Compare with this.) VintageVernacular (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes it is and it isn't some random claim. The point of posting here was not to have a discussion of the nature of this smear. Is a criticism of the author relevant or a crass personal attack? The scientist you are upset about published a critique of a systematic review on medical studies in humans, but is not a health professional or experienced in writing systematic reviews. And it shows, when they get basic stuff wrong. Their expertise is basic science of animal brain function via monkey vocalisations in a lab. Whereas the team that wrote that systematic review are The York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination who have not only written over 200 systematic reviews, but offer courses teaching others how to do so. The comparison in that case is fair and forms a core of MEDRS (the opinions of random nobodies posting personal opinions vs systematic reviews in top tier medical journals). This is how we keep out the Covid cranks and cancer cure herbalists and so on.

Your post wasn't a critique of their journalistic credentials, but a smear. Doing that poisons the discussion which could have raised important objections about their story. -- Colin°^Talk 09:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't just referring to that case but the one a couple comments down where you brought up a letter signed in Cell about opposing discrimination in medicine. As regards this researcher who published a critique, I explained to you how that researcher's expertise is general neuroscience; they simply published one or two papers looking at monkeys, you continued calling them a "monkey researcher" regardless elsewhere on the talk page repeatedly. This is surely more of a "smear" than me accurately representing an extreme argument made by in my view a semi-questionable journalist. By the way, leaders in the British Medical Association, who own those exact "top tier medical journals" you're citing, are currently scrutinizing the review. (A fact you removed from the page.) The journal has also failed to correct errors pointed out by this researcher you call a mere "monkey researcher". VintageVernacular (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am puzzled why you think attacking me with all this nonsense is in anyway relevant to analysing your smear of a journalist. Do you think this noticeboard exists to say "Oh but you smell worse" level of argument. I am not going to respond further. -- Colin°^Talk 12:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Colin, I read that as a failure to assume good faith on your part. "He is unreliable because he has bad takes on pedophilia" is a much more plausible reading than "He is a pedophile," to me, and I gather to most of the people in this thread. If it were otherwise, how could any of us ever criticize a source's views on pedophilia? As I and others have said, it's not a good argument (since bad takes are subjective and this amounts to argument from incredulity), but it's not an insinuation of impropriety. Y'all should both take under advisement the criticism in both directions here, and then get back to working on improving the article. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh I am assuming good faith. That doesn't stop editors having the wrong idea about how to discuss sources without making offensive smears about well known authors, Tamzin. Lots of people do wrong and even bad things on Wikipedia in good faith. Maybe it is a cultural thing and it reads differently across the pond. I don't know. -- Colin°^Talk 20:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The ever-controversial Boogie2988 revealed he had cancer not too long ago. Recently there's been an accusation from streamer Destiny that this was fake, which has made the news on some websites. This accusation is mentioned at Boogie2988#Personal_life.

Athough it's caused quite the controversy in the past couple of weeks, I'm wondering if this is a BLP violation. It seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to be included in Boogie's article while it's only an accusation from another streamer (someone who is not a medical expert). It also seems to be putting a lot of faith in Destiny's interpretation of Boogie's diagnosis. Right now there's no proof at all that he's faked this diagnosis – it's just an accusation from a streamer.

Should this be removed? — Czello ^(music) 08:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. WP:SPORTSKEEDA is the only cited source, so I think it has no due weight. VintageVernacular (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Even if a better quality source were included, am I correct in thinking it should still not be included based on a mere accusation from a streamer? — Czello ^(music) 08:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the whole bit about cancer should be removed. The only source for the subject having cancer is a tweet by the subject and they have proven themselves to be far from reliable. I think WP:BLP would have us remove the whole lot until reliable secondary sources say anything about it. TarnishedPath^talk 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Repeating what I said on the talk page:

It seems reasonable to me to say "he said he had been diagnosed with polycythemia vera" (rather than simply "he was diagnosed") as we're putting the emphasis on the fact that this is according to him. — Czello ^(music) 13:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should specify that it's a claim, rather than saying that "he said ..." TarnishedPath^talk 13:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a WP:CLAIM issue, trying to cast doubt based on material from an inappropriate source. "Said" should be fine. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well if we're clear that it's an inappropriate source, and it's not been covered by reliable secondary sources then it has probably has no place in the article because it's not at all significant. TarnishedPath^talk 13:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see what benefit that would add; it's less neutral wording. — Czello ^(music) 13:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's more proof that he faked it than there's proof that he was ever diagnosed with it. What evidence has Boogie provided of his diagnosis so far? 203.63.198.136 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We're not saying he has been diagnosed, we're just saying that's what he said. — Czello ^(music) 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Or at least, we were - it's now been removed for WP:PRIMARY reasons, which is probably for the best. — Czello ^(music) 15:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Boogie himself has confirmed that he has lied about his cancer on the Lolcow livestreams, so any mention of him having cancer should be prefaced with a statement confirming that Boogie was lying about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.196.25.100 (talk) 14:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unless I'm much mistaken, what he's said is For now, we have been treating the Polycythemia Vera which is the cancer they told me that I have. I don't believe there has been an outright admittence to lying – if there's something I've missed, please source it. — Czello ^(music) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This reminds me a lot of what happened with Nikocado Avocado. Nikocado Avocado is not exactly the most truthful person. Some people came to his article challenging the truthfulness of a lot of his claims about his health. Our solution was also to just attribute his claims (e.g. "Perry said..." or "Perry told Men's Health that...). Which, to be honest, is generally what secondary sources do anyway. I think per BLP we would want strong reliable secondary sourcing to explicitly dispute any of his claims, which we didn't have, and it appears we don't have such sourcing here either. I think writing "Williams said ..." is also the right thing to do here as well. Endwise (talk) 14:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think a greater question is if the claims that they have whatever illnesses aren't covered by reliable secondary sources, do they even belong in the WP article? If they aren't covered by reliable secondary sources, surely we can't say that the material is significant enough to warrant inclusion? TarnishedPath^talk 01:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that we should not be using a primary source for a contentious claim in a BLP. The sourcing isn't good enough to present the claim as fact. Using language such as "claimed" may cast doubt on the subject's claims from the perspective of the reader in a way that isn't supported by reliable sources. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 13:58, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

An IP has shown up at Bai Ling claiming to represent the subject and removed a significant chunk of information [13][14]. Given the context and need to get it right I feel that a centralized discussion is proper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article from Pride.com says she's bi-sexual[15], which references an article by Glaad that inturn references Examiner. com. Both the Glaad and Examiner article have been taken offline (although the sites are still online), but are archived (Glaad[16], Examiner [see below]). The origin red carpet interview was by Mike Szymanski[17].

Bi.org also lists her as bi-sexual[18] but again refers back to the Glaad article for doing so.

BuzzFeed have an article on bi celebrities including Bai Ling[19], and again it quotes the Glaad article.

I don't know what to make of it. The original interview was recorded and the wayback machine has even archived the page that was on [see below], but it was embedded in an Adobe Shockwave file so good luck with that. All other sources appear to reference that interview, or the Glaad article that references that interview.

I can't post the Examiner archive links, as they're blacklisted. So you'll have to remove the spaces between examiner. and com if you want to see them.

Interview transcript

web.archive.org/web/20140919125502/http://www.examiner. com/article/bai-ling-transcripts-a-personal-bisexual-chat-with-the-unpredictable-indie-starlet

Broken recorded interview page

web.archive.org/web/20140919130609/http://www.examiner. com/article/actress-bai-ling-reveals-more-about-her-bisexuality-than-ever-before-exclusive-interview-part-1 -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would see Glaad as a sufficiently reliable source to accurately describe the contents of a video that has since been lost to rot. They also cite her personal site, although similar rot issues are preventing me from finding the exact blog post (presumably from December 2009). Either way, here she is with Szymanski in 2023 on an all-bisexual panel, at 1:30 saying essentially the same thing she did in '09. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great find, thanks Tamzin. The 2023 video leaves no doubt. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also to be clear with Glaad my concern was that they've taken the article down, that's likely because they've updated the site and the article was lost but it's best to be certain in BLP, not that Glaad wasn't reliable. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've restored, with the newer source and a bit more detail drawn from all three sources. I also left a note in my edit summary, addressed to the person who removed it (who claims to be Bai Ling's agent), that she might want to reach out to her and see if there's been some miscommunication. Thanks to @Horse Eye's Back for bringing this here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ralph DeLuca

Ralph DeLuca (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article has not yet been indexed - apologies if this is not the correct place to check about this. I have added its relevant categories, as requested on the bottom.

Thank you for your time in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeeems (talk • contribs) 20:56:35 (UTC)

Hi @Meeeems. There's no BLP issue here. Your article is still awaiting review. A volunteer reviewer will get to it when they are able. In the meantime, could you please take a look at Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and make sure you are in compliance? Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Meeeems. I saw this in passing (there's something about me, directly below your inquiry). See Talk:Ralph DeLuca for my review of the article. Please do as Tamzin requested. Ask me on my talk page if you need help with the Paid contributor/COI template. Article talk pages aren't indexed, so don't worry about it as it will stay like that.--FeralOink (talk) 09:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII isn't named correctly and is a complete PR/puff page with self-published sources, press releases, purchased awards, and myriad other issues. I looked up a bunch of policies to help clean it up but in the end I don't know what to do about it, given it's still just a complete mess, the entire title is fake, and is maintained by an SPA. Help? --164.64.118.102 (talk) 21:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I've sent it to AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Gharios El Chemor of Ghassan Al-Numan VIII). Black Kite (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  @Black Kite, is there a way to check to see if the SPAs who are bombarding the AfD are the same user/account/etc.? They are MasterKamalKhan and Leo0274. Not sure how to go about doing that! --164.64.118.102 (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Oh, and . Xianboyd. --164.64.118.102 (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  I've just started a SPI on MasterKamalKhan and Leo0274. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Derek Blasberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's been some edit warring in this article over whether an incident earlier this month where Blasberg had an explosive bowel movement in Gwyneth Paltrow's cottage should be mentioned in the article. I think there's reasonable reason to exclude per WP:GOSSIP, even though the incident has been covered by reliable sources like Variety, but @FeralOink: has been insistent on including it. I thought I would make a post here for wider input. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Variety source is a gossip article, which sources the identification to the Daily Mail. I've accordingly removed its other use from the article. The incident appears to fall afoul of BLP sourcing requirements in addition to being trivial gossip content. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hemiauchenia, I have not been insistent on including the bowel movement portion in the BLP of Derek Blasberg. Let's refer to it as the "incident" for brevity here. As one can see from the first of two discussions on the talk page, on 4 July, I inquired of other editors whether it was appropriate to include. Three editors discussed and the four of us decided that it was; no one objected. An IP editor provided a link to an article appearing in a trade journal (Variety) for the fashion and beauty industry (which meets criteria for WP:RS and WP:NPOV) that was lengthy and entirely devoted to the incident. ELLE magazine and Yahoo! Entertainment reported on the incident too. Further sources for the BLP subject's personal life were suggested by one of the three editors in the incident discussion, see this later subsection of the talk page, also on 6 July, including New York magazine and Women's Wear Daily, legitimate sources for the fashion industry; both provided extensive, specific coverage. I cleaned up the entire article, added updated and encyclopedic content, and sources throughout. I began my work on 9 July and completed it by adding a new section about the incident on July 11.

This morning, 23 July, I noticed that most of my edits, both the incident and my article updates, had been reverted. On 22 July, the IP editor who removed non-incident related content with edit summaries that it was not factual (despite being WP:NPOV and WP:RS sourced); IP editor provided no explanation on the talk page. Willthacheerleader18 made her edits on 16 July, removing 11 July incident content. I restored both today, 23 July, after leaving a message for Will on her talk page, in which I linked to the talk page section with editors concurring on inclusion of the incident. Will made no comments there.

This is hardly edit warring:

• First a discussion on 4 July to 6 July, then edits on 9 July and completed on 11 July;
• removal of incident content by Will on 16 July;
• reverts by IP editor on 22 July of non-incident content;
• restoration by me on 23 July,
• then the following surprises today on 23 July.
• Merely an hour and 30 minutes after my restorations, first Carrite removed the incident content & sources AND 30 minutes later, Yngvadottir removed/ truncated informative sourced content unrelated to the incident.
• I have not made any further changes to the article. It remains as Carrite and Yngvadottir changed it, having reverted me.

Note that a COI, single purpose account, DBassistant (Derek Blasberg assistant?) made numerous contributions to the article in the past, so I was especially alert to IP edits with sus edit summaries.

Also, I was taken aback by edit summaries with this dismissive and unfriendly tone, when Carrite reverted me this morning: Personal life: Removes. Trivia on the one hand, BLP issue on the other. Feral Oink: stop edit warring to preserve this nor of judgements about what is gossip in the fashion and beauty industry, Yngvadottir: Removed earlier ref to Variety gossip column, the main part of which goes back to Daily Mail and social media posts; per BLPSOURCES. Friendship w/ Gwyneth Paltrow has already been reinstated w/ a different source. This edit is not an endorsement of the WMF.. Neither broached their changes on the talk page. The Variety article was a lengthy profile and analysis of Blasberg's career, of which the incident was a few paragraphs. It was not a "gossip column", and should not have been summarily removed.--FeralOink (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

FeralOink, here's that Variety link again: [20]. Yes, Variety is generally reliable for showbiz news, but that article is totally and openly gossip, and gives full credit to its sources; in particular, it traces the identification to the Daily Mail, which should be avoided when possible. This is a BLP. And as I noted in my edit summary, his being a friend of Paltrow was already in the article, with a different reference (you restored it). So despite being an extended treatment of the article subject, the Variety article that is primarily about the defecation incident is not needed to reference anything in the article, and its use cannot be defended. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is the argument here really about whether a biography of a living person should go off at length about how he allegedly took a really bad dump once? In the primary document that appears when his name is searched on the Internet? I mean, this is really just a thing with absolutely zero encyclopedic interest at all, but beyond that, on a very basic common sense level: have we, at long last, no decency? How utterly embarrassing -- for us. jp×g🗯️ 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi FeralOink (talk · contribs), I am a woman and my pronouns are she/her (Will is short for Wilhelmina). I removed the edits on the Blasberg article, as I explained in my edit description, because it did not seem encyclopedic at best. Wikipedia is not a gossip column. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

JPxG you are grossly mischaracterizing the incident. The BLP subject did not "take a really bad dump". There were three sentences about the incident in the article, which is not "at length". This is the removed content: "On 6 July 2024, Variety reported that Blasberg had "an unseemly incident in (Paltrow's) guest cottage, involving an intense bowel movement which wrecked the place". Blasberg departed immediately, leaving some cash for Paltrow's housekeeping staff, rather than making any attempt to clean up after himself. The extent of the mishap was not limited to the bed, but rather (as detailed by Yahoo! Entertainment) fouled the walls, ceiling, and floor of the guest room as well." I agree, that the third sentence can be omitted. Also, notice that the article has received over 48,000 page views in the past 30 days so it clearly is of interest to some people. Finally, when one does a Google search on the BLP subject's name, three of the four "Top Stories" reference the incident. That is not due to the Wikipedia BLP as all three pre-date the changes I made on 12 July.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I so very much apologize Willthacheerleader18 (talk · contribs)!!! I'm a woman too. I should have noticed that you were, and especially since you have "cheerleader" in your user name. (Yes, there are male cheerleaders, but still...!) I made several typos in what I wrote above. Yngvadottir is making a subjective judgement on what constitutes a "gossip column". Again, I will reiterate that there is a talk page discussion and that this should have been broached there first, rather than summarily reverting me and bringing it before a Noticeboard. I am particularly aggrieved at the lack of WP:Good faith by the initial Noticeboard entry by Hemiauchenia that characterizes me as "insisting" and then "edit warring"! I was merely restoring content that had been agreed to on the talk page. I even made inquiries myself about whether it was appropriate to include initially, per the talk page.

I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Perhaps that belongs at the sources noticeboard rather than BLP.--FeralOink (talk) 15:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised that editors would use their personal judgement to determine which content from a WP:RS source is "gossip" and which is not. Deciding what should be included in an article is a fundamental part of what we do here. Accepting for the sake of argument that nobody disputes the reliability of Variety as a source here, the fact that something is verified by a reliable source does not mean that we have to include it. This is supported by policy: see e.g. WP:ONUS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. In particular, our BLP policy says that Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, and the lead of that policy explicitly mentions exercising editorial judgment.

At any rate, regardless of what policy says: how can including this possibly be a good idea? What encyclopedic virtue does it have? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so I will disregard Wikipedia_Wonderful_698-D, GramercyGreats, and 98.248.161.240 on Talk:Derek Blasberg. My initial enquiry there was "This is all over the news although it hasn't made it to Page Six/NY Post... yet. Paltrow told Oprah what Blasberg did at her home. I added two sentences without mentioning the ghastly "incident" but sourced his close friendship with Paltrow using two WP:RS, WP:NPOV references that cover what happened. I have no idea whether something like this belongs in a BLP of a socialite or not." Responses by other editors included "It does." and "The story has been picked up by international outlets including Variety and the Daily Mail. I believe it does belong on the page." Just now, I checked the edit history of those users. They are scant, and in one case, has a disclaimer that they only edit occasionally. I apologize for my error in judgement about trusting the advice of the three editors on the talk page without further investigation. I was naive. I am unaccustomed to editing BLPs about people in the popular media. You were correct to revert me. JPxG, there is NO need to say I "have no decency"! If I had no decency, I wouldn't work on this project.--FeralOink (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:NOTNEWS. Something being "all over the news" does not mean it is appropriate for an encyclopedic biography. I do not see any attempt to provide an argument for the long-term significance or noteworthiness of the content. – notwally (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply