Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Mykolas Majauskas

Frankcrook user keeps adding original research and framing (e.g., this phrase: 'While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence, in 2018 Majauskas was accused...') and pushing their non-neutral point of view on the page of a living person. Additionally, they avoid discussion on the talk page, and to make things even worse - they continue removing properly sourced material from the page without any explanation. --美しい歌 (talk) 08:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I started making small changes by reviewing each source again and removing anything not covered by the sources. 美しい歌 (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

all my edits again were reverted. I will wait fot the admin help here. 美しい歌 (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Here I made a list of violations and additions to the page that violate the BLP and just have no sources behind in this section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mykolas_Majauskas#Sexual_violence_allegations,_#MeToo :

• of making sexual advances in his apartment after plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) - not found in the source; a fabricated sentence made with the hope that non-native speakers won't understand and won't pay close attention to what is actually stated in the source.
• While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - using the tactic of editorial framing to show the subject in a negative light. This type of statement can be seen as biased or non-neutral, as it subtly suggests that the subject's actions or public image are insincere or contradictory without directly stating it. Such framing violates Wikipedia’s neutral point of view (NPOV) policy and is an emotional language bombardment.
• schoolgirls who have been attacked by Majauskas - not correct, no mention of attack. I've already provided the correct wording (right not it's misleading)
• Allegations were corroborated by a victim who waived her right to privacy and was publicly named; she described a pattern, extending over at least five years - confusing, no sources found about "publicly named" or "pattern extending over at least five years"
• Majauskas hosting alcohol-fueled house parties with schoolgirls - no source found, just added there with the hope that no-one will double check and review the sources
• has never been publicly disclosed by the media due to fears of retaliation - not properly worded
• He was also accused of intimidating the victims. - yes, but it was his opposition faction member, which I already stated and added, but it was reverted
• Following the scandal Majauskas did not resign from his parliamentary seat, continued his political career and remains [citation needed] a catalyst for the Lithuanian chapter of WEF Global Shapers - added without a source; it reads like a fabricated or original research statement

美しい歌 (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra, could you kindly take a look at this case, please? 美しい歌 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I don't do BLPN. My views are too extreme. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I see. thank you! 美しい歌 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just started taking a look at some of the disputed content. I looked first at While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - using the tactic of editorial framing to show the subject in a negative light. The source in Lithuanian does appear to suggest that "Until now, M. Majauskas created the image of an exemplary family man and a fighter against any violence." The specific allegation of date rape does not appear to be in the source, nor that he "plied her with alcohol". The article states he made sexual advances which were rejected and that he had been drinking. So I think there is an issue with how that incident is described in the article currently. This article in Lithuanian also details allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour but short of what is written. It does corroborate allegations of anonymous complaints about alcohol-fuelled parties with young political staffers (over 18). I think the section on the allegations could do with some work, it was obviously a significant political issue but some of the current section is poorly-worded. AusLondonder (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AusLondonder exactly. exactly. It’s written in a skewed way, cherry-picking information and making up unusual outcomes, with too much emotion and original research added.

  Also, another hug problem, I can't understand why that user keeps deleting all the other neutral additions — entire sections on political activity, civic activity, etc. I even added more sources and trimmed content that wasn’t properly sourced, but everything was reverted, and my work was lost. If possible, please restore some of my versions and adjust them if necessary 美しい歌 (talk) 12:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  While cultivating a public image of a family man and a fighter against domestic violence - should be removed per WP:HEADLINES - News headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source - and that quote is from the subheadline and can't be used. That whole section needs to be reviewed and rewritten per what the sources actually state. And this - accused sex offender - needs to be removed immediately from the lead. It looks like to me the wrong version was protected by Daniel Case. Since this is contentious material about a living person that is being disputed for misrepresenting what the sources actually state, the WP:ONUS is on those to achieve consensus for inclusion of the disputed content. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Oh my God ... you actually used the phrase "the wrong version" with absolutely no apparent sense of self-awareness or irony. Daniel Case (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case thanks for protecting the page, hope you will have time to rewrite it in line with BLP and the actual sources. And thank you fellows for helping to evaluate the sources @Isaidnoway @AusLondonder. BTW, I guess the user Frankcrook who pushed blp violations should be restricted from editing the page. Should I raise this question separately somewhere else? 美しい歌 (talk) 07:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Which specific BLP violations did I push, and how?

  When editing Wikipedia I am focusing on providing mainstream references and succinctly wording them. I am more than happy when other editors are able to word the sources more precisely, considering how precise automatic translation has become (something I planned to start using as editing default for some time). Unfortunately there are usually few other editors around. The sources you mention are not mine, but apart from nuances of translation I fail to see anything wrong with them.

  I endorse in advance any wording provided by automatic translation except in cases of editorial cherry-picking from said translation. On article's Talk page yesterday I described (some of) 美しい歌 edits as well-intentioned; what I objected to was complete rewrite of the article by 89.245.191.88 and Insillaciv and 美しい歌 repeatedly and falsely claiming their version had consensus (of themselves?).

  As for whether my revert of 89.245.191.88 and Insillaciv complete rewrite of the article was justified I have just reread what Notability is (especially what constitutes significant coverage, reliable sources independent of the subject, context, fringe topics, original research, and self-promotion and publicity) and What Wikipedia is not (indiscriminate collection of information, means of promotion, battleground, censored, propaganda). How would you compare your and IP's version to the current version, on all or some of these criteria?Frankcrook (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Let more experienced users review the page and take appropriate action regarding the content and your behavior. You cannot just removed anything you want, but you are welcome to discuss and refused too. Besided BLP violations, you have removed well-sourced material, including references from the Parliament and other credible sources. You're only causing more harm to your position. You even threatened to block me, though you're not an administrator, and you were doing so only to push your views, which goes against the friendly and collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. I hope other users will take the time and interest to evaluate what is happening here 美しい歌 (talk) 10:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  美しい歌, do you plan to address any of the points/questions I made here or on the article's Talk page? I replied to every single post you made on Talk (I started the thread and invited you there) so it is patently untrue that I "refused to" engage. Unfortunately I found your responses somewhat evasive.

  What is my "position"? This is probably around 5th (?) time you are making a personal accusation, which is in contradiction of Wikipedia's Assume good faith advice.

  I did not once "threaten to block" you. While yesterday was the first time ever I used vandalism warnings I was following Wikipedia's policy on Vandalism which states: "Warning a user for vandalism is generally a prerequisite to administrator intervention (...) users should be warned for each and every instance of vandalism." After warning you first on your Wikipedia profile without using the template, I ran out of warnings after 3; you continued reverting article even after stating you will wait for an administrator's intervention. I then asked for administrator intervention and called for more experienced editors to take a look on the article's Talk page.

  I would prefer to focus on discussing exact edits and specific Wikipedia policies instead of having to address your mischaracterizations.Frankcrook (talk) 12:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  In this edit summary, you wrote: the cases have not been settled by either law-enforcement or apology, or proven to be false accusations, so he continues being "accused", as it were. According to this source, it says: "After reviewing the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct," the prosecutor's office's report said. So it has been settled per the prosecutor's statement. And although you did not add sex offender, that contentious label is defined as a person who has committed a sex crime, so according to WP:BLPCRIME, we can't suggest the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. There is no conviction, and according to the prosecutor no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct. So that is an egregious BLPVIO that can not be stated in the lead sentence in Wikivoice, and the article should not have protected to that version with that BLPVIO. And quite frankly, that whole section - Sexual violence allegations - is one gigantic BLPVIO, as the wording in that section does not accurately reflect what the sources actually state. I don't necessarily oppose the allegations being included, but according to our BLP policy - Wikipedia must get the article right, and as it stands right now, it is not right. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  MeToo movement made accusations and convictions were not secured in many cases; in fact the accused often chose not to defend themselves; Harvey Weinstein Wikipedia page mentions both accusations and convictions. Successfully impeaching Majauskas was prerequisite for prosecution to go ahead; prosecutors said they will not begin the investigation because it was not possible to prove that the anonymous accuser was contractually subordinated to Majauskas, and she would not waive anonymity until he was impeached; however this is not the same as stating, as you do, that prosecutors said "no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct". Would you mind providing the original quotation and the source? In any case, there were (5?) other accusers, including a woman who was publicly named.Frankcrook (talk) 12:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  To be more precise: "Prokuratūra atsisakė pradėti ikiteisminį tyrimą dėl parlamentaro Mykolo Majausko galimo seksualinio priekabiavimo, nenustačiusi pavaldumo ryšio tarp politiko ir jį anonimiškai kaltinusios merginos. „Pagal turimus duomenis, nenustatyta tarnybinio ar kitokio priklausomumo tarp M. Majausko ir redakcijai duomenis pateikusio asmens“, – ketvirtadienį paskelbė prokuratūra." > "The prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation into the possible sexual harassment of MP Mykolas Majauskas, without establishing a subordinate relationship between the politician and the girl who accused him anonymously. "According to the available data, no official or other affiliation was established between M. Majauskas and the person who submitted the data to the editorial office," the prosecutor's office announced on Thursday."

  I helped myself to a Google translation of the following: "Prokuratūra ir ikiteisminio tyrimo įstaigos nesikiša į privačius asmenų santykius, nevertina etikos ir moralės klausimų, nekontroliuoja ir nesikiša į įstaigų ir organizacijų veiklą, tol, kol nenustatoma nusikalstamos veikos požymių." > "The prosecutor's office and pre-trial investigation institutions do not interfere in the private relationships of individuals, do not evaluate ethical and moral issues, do not control and do not interfere in the activities of institutions and organizations, as long as no signs of a criminal act are detected." It is a general statement from the institutions about their mandate, not judgement concerning this particular case. Elsewhere in the article prosecutors say they did not establish contact with the accuser; Landsbergis says that prosecutors in theory are allowed to initiate the investigation of their own accord in exceptional cases of public interest, but they decline to do so. I would also like to draw your attention that prosecutors specifically mention criminal prosecution; there are other types of prosecution in Lithuania, for example civil, which may (or not) be more applicable in this case. But civil prosecution would still bump into Majauskas parliamentary immunity, therefore, to repeat, this is prerequisite for prosecution (or honest attempt at preparatory investigation) to go ahead.Frankcrook (talk) 12:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  And one more quotation: ""After studying the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to start a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or misdemeanor," the prosecutor's office said in a statement." "Crime" again seems to refer to criminal law; civil law would necessitate the woman/women to make formal, non-anonymous accusations against a person who's "unimpeacheable".Frankcrook (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  As a mental exercise, let's presume innocence and discuss what were the avenues available to Majauskas for the last 6 years. Let's assume he had unknown reasons not to waive his parliamentary immunity. He only needed to sue the women or the media and establish his innocence by winning.Frankcrook (talk) 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations do not amount to a conviction. And he wasn't accused of sexual violence, as the section heading suggests, he was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior and/or sexual harassment. The girl did not say that Majauskas forced her to do anything. According to her, he realized that nothing would work out. And plying her with copious amounts of alcohol at a bar (a date rape) ... Majauskas hosting alcohol-fueled house parties are complete fabrications. And there was no civil judgement against him, so he wasn't held liable in that regard. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point of the page I linked is way at the bottom, after all the sarcasm: Admins must be neutral when they protect a page. Other than obvious vandalism, I never make any reverts coincident with a protection. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, my bad, I thought WP:BLP still applied to pages with contentious material on English Wikipedia. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's primarily a wording issue, which any editor can now address. The content should not simply be wiped as some IP was trying to do. The topic is clearly worthy of inclusion, the allegations led to two impeachment votes in parliament. AusLondonder (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to this source, it says: "After reviewing the statement and clarifying the data, the prosecutor's office refused to open a pre-trial investigation (...) because no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct," the prosecutor's office's report said. So it has been settled per the prosecutor's statement, but yet that info is missing from the article. And although you did not add sex offender, that contentious label is defined as a person who has committed a sex crime, so according to WP:BLPCRIME, we can't suggest the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. There is no conviction, and according to the prosecutor no act was committed that had the characteristics of a crime or criminal misconduct. So that is an egregious BLPVIO that can not be stated in the lead sentence in Wikivoice, and the article should not have protected to that version with that BLPVIO. And quite frankly, that whole section - Sexual violence allegations - is one gigantic BLPVIO, as the wording in that section does not accurately reflect what the sources actually state. I don't necessarily oppose the allegations being included, but according to our BLP policy - Wikipedia must get the article right, and as it stands right now, it is not right. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  There is as far as I know no exception to this where BLP is concerned (one of the rare places in policy where this is so). I suppose the "unsourced or poorly sourced negative statements about a BLP" exception from 3RRNO could also be applied. But as noted here the question seems to be about interpreting the sources, not their quality. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  See WP:BLPRESTORE. Zaereth (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  That does not say anything about protecting a page. Daniel Case (talk) 15:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  According to our protection policy: when protecting a page, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as poor-quality coverage of living people, and when I raised this issue about the version that was protected, I didn't receive any serious consideration to my good-faith query; I was instead mocked and ridiculed on a community discussion noticeboard. Isaidnoway (talk) 04:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway :( 美しい歌 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Given the strength of this dispute I'd say that the quality of this coverage of a living person is not settled. As noted it's the wording, which you are trying to settle. And full protection expires soon.

  I chose protection because it doesn't go on individual user's records and because this is what we do during edit wars like this. Clearly, based on all the flak I'm catching here, the consensus is that that was a mistake. I had seriously considered blocking the editors involved who had gone way beyond 3RR. If, after protection ends, this continues, I think blocking all the editors engaged in edit warring from the page for some time might not be a bad idea.

  Alternatively, we could impose 1RR on the page.

  And if you want your version restored, feel free to put a formal edit request on the talk page. Or ask another admin. I really don't want to be seen as taking sides here. Daniel Case (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't a matter of having my version restored, I've never edited the article. The issue was you protecting a version that contained policy-violating content, which was the completely false and fabricated material about the subject, which is not a wording issue, it's a straight-up BLPVIO issue. And choosing protection to stop edit-warring is fine, but as noted per our protection policy, you also had a duty to avoid protecting a version that contained policy-violating content. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Daniel Case thank you for your time here! Please advise what to do with the person who, over ten times, removed well-sourced material (not rewrote or adjusted but just removed). As far as I know, that is punished on Wikipedia by a temporary or permanent block.

  Another issue is about interpreting the sources—but I must admit, having thoroughly read the sources multiple times, that is a very soft explanation because the sources don't tell what is already in the article, and that is what BLP says—to be careful with.

  So we have a double issue: the removal of content without a valid reason, and the repeated addition of made-up content, trying to manipulate sources and clearly violating BLP. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Repeatedly removing sourced material without explanation is, yes, disruptive. Making one's preferred changes repeatedly while discussion is underway is also something we have blocked many people for. But we should never suggest that BLP requires the inclusion of anything. There have been many times when validly sourced material has been removed after a consensus discussion of its BLP relevance. Daniel Case (talk) 16:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Dion Aiye

Sexual assault allegations here. Polygnotus (talk) 10:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Bad sources?

Hi everybody. I am an IR student writing a dissertation on protest movements across Central Asia and an analysis of their causes (obviously I'm not just using Wikipedia!). On the article Karim Massimov some of the sources are raising red flags for me like this exclusive article which pulls from LiveJournal of all things and Russian language media like RIA Novosti which has links to Sputnik. I wasn't sure who to check the inclusion of such sources with, but there was a link on the Talk page to this noticeboard. Should I trust these sources or should they be removed, and who by? Thank you Jezzaqueen (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick review of the sources, but keep in mind this was from machine-translation so my impressions may not be the same as a native speaker of Russian. I'd wager pretty close, though.

The first two sources are very opinionated and have sort of a "gotcha" tone, so they come off more as persuasive writing than expository. Bad sign. Further more, they seem to be doing some pretty iffy research methods, for example, pricing out all these properties through Zillo. The source is all about him owning a bunch of real estate in America, which I guess is supposed to be a bad thing? (Don't know why, but I suspect some cultural difference.) Most concerning is it shows Google Earth pics of each house and give their addresses, so I think per BLPPRIVACY these should be removed. We're only cherrypicking a small sentence at the end, which is tangential to what the sources are all about.

The third source, on the other hand, is very well-written, and comes off as neutral and professional. That in itself doesn't make it a good source, just that it appears good at first glance. I don't know its reputation for accuracy, reliability, or things like that, but if it's government owned then I highly suspect it's probably not good. Someone who is familiar with Russian media and can read it fluently should really give their input on it, so perhaps WP:RSN would be a good place to ask.

You can remove them, along with the info they cite, yourself. Just leave a detailed edit summary explaining why. (You can link this discussion in your edit summary if you like.) If no one objects then no problem, but if someone restores it you can start a discussion on the talk page to establish consensus one way or the other. Zaereth (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Zaereth for your advice. I'll remove the sentences referenced by the Exclusive article from the page. Also, thanks for pointing me towards WP:RSN which I didn't know was a thing! I'll see what they say about trusting Ria Novosti later on this afternoon. Jezzaqueen (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jezzaqueen It looks like there has already been quite a bit of discussion and you can see links to the discussion at WP:RIANOVOSTI. Still 7,187 links from WP. You might ask David Gerard who looked at the looked at the source last before starting a discussion. fiveby(zero) 14:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, per that discussion RIA's probably bad now since the thorough RT-ification of Russian state media and is a branch of Sputnik, but used to be okayish maybe with care? But that link's from 2023 so we would ignore it in the normal course of events as it's well into the Sputnik era. The hard part is finding any usable coverage of notable people where all the sources are going to be problematic at best - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

One thing I should point out is I didn't see the subject in question mentioned in that source anywhere. Maybe I missed it, but I do remember looking. It talks about an attempted coup that I am guessing the subject was somehow allegedly involved in, but it didn't name any names. Good or bad, it doesn't show much relevance to this person without some other source to connect the dots. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Did Julia Roberts attend college?

A discussion at Talk:Julia Roberts has found there are conflicting sources about whether Roberts attended Georgia State University or if she never pursued higher education. Could we get more input on this and where to go from here? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

When in doubt, leave it out. Better to err on the side of caution. It looks like the talk page is coming to a consensus in that direction. Zaereth (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF at Devin the Dude

A couple days ago, Devin the Dude made a post on Facebook saying the information about him on Wikipedia was incorrect. Several fans saw the issue and tried to correct it, but they didn't know how to add sources so User:Fred Gandt kept reverting them (describing it as vandalism). He then requested semi-protection, which was granted by User:Johnuniq.

An edit request brought my attention to the issue and directed me to the Facebook post, so I used that as the source per WP:ABOUTSELF. I also noticed that the Facebook bio used some of the same language as the Wikipedia article, including the old date, so I mentioned that as well and thanked the IP for making the edit request.

Fred Gandt reverted and responded with Are you kidding? Preferring a primary source over independent, secondary, when you know that source disagrees with itself, while also agreeing with some of the info you just changed. Absolutely incredible. Good job. This is why people mock Wikipedia. *facepalm*

The issue needs to be resolved one way or another, but I don't plan on engaging with this so it would be helpful if others could take a look and decide where to go from here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hindsight being 20:20 makes for a nice story apparently. How about keeping the discussion in one place? We could have started on the article talk page, but no. Or on the request to remove the protection? No. Here? Apparently not. My talk? No. Yours? No. You're successfully not engaging with me, at all, anywhere, while engaging with everyone else about the article, the contention and me. Feeble. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 06:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Gandt is correct. We have to rely on third-party published sources with editorial oversight for any claim that a reasonable person could challenge, and this includes DoB. The subject's own Facebook posts don't cut it. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien:re-signing for ping. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 07:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

A WP:ABOUTSELF source can absolutely be considered as good on DOB and full name. Compare WP:ALLMUSIC, which seems to have been the source of the DOB. "He's obviously lying that he's older than WP says!" is not a necessary conclusion. Consider also WP:BLPKIND. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We have to rely on third-party published sources with editorial oversight for any claim that a reasonable person could challenge That's not quite true. WP:ABOUTSELF requires that we don't use self-published sources for "unduly self-serving" or "exceptional" claims; I don't think "I was born 1969 rather than 1970" is either unduly self-serving or exceptional. WP:BLPRS requires only a "reliable, published source"; it doesn't say that it must be third-party. (I'm also not convinced that a reasonable person would suggest that someone is lying about their age to make themselves 55 rather than 54: what's the purported motive here?!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We can continue this at article talk, but it was pointed out there that this says 1969 and this says 1970. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Date of birth is controversial often enough that it can and should require a source to be included.

@Caeciliusinhorto: There're myriad reasons, especially in gymnastics and the entertainment industry (TV and film in particular) why someone may want to present their age as different than what it actually is. And by definition, a reliable source is third-party as far as we are concerned; anything a subject themselves says on social media is considered self-published and explicitly not good enough for challengeable biographical claims. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 23:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, Caeciliusinhorto already quoted the policy, which does not make a requirement about third-party sources: WP:BLPRS "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". Similarly, WP:BLPSELFPUB does not contain that additional requirement either. – notwally (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Notwally: And I just explained why blindly adhering to the letter of the policy is not a good idea here. If you hadn't noticed, the subject's own words are at odds with themselves. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 00:17, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Jéské Couriano, you didn't explain anything about "blindly adhering to the letter of the policy". You said "by definition" and "explicitly" while linking to policy pages as if what you were stating is in those policies. It's not. Policy also does not require anything be included. The fact that there are conflicting sources is a perfectly valid reason, even when "blindy adhering to the letter of the policy", to not include certain information. – notwally (talk) 00:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think people get far too obsessed over birthdates. There's somehow this weird idea that a person might be lying about their age and we need to right this great wrong. I don't mean that in a disrespectful way, as in, I don't think people consciously think that's what they're doing, but there does seem to be this underlying sense of urgency to it as if we need to expose some great truth or expose them for dirty liars that they are.

People lie about their age all the time. It's as common as lying to your kids about Santa Claus. Who cares. I was 21 until I turned 28, and stayed 28 until I hit 40.

The thing is, it's not very important. In the grand scheme of things, it's not really important at all. It's statistical data not much more significant than height, weight, or eye color. It doesn't reveal anything substantial about the subject, and if removed entirely the article reads exactly the same.

Where it becomes a BLP issue is BLPPRIVACY, because we have to be certain the subject is ok with us publishing the date. If they mention it on their own website, then that pretty well confirms they're ok with it being put out there. I have no reason to doubt them, and even if they're lying does it really matter? If there is some doubt then simply leaving it out won't hurt anything either. I suppose we could say "Source A says this while the subject says that..." but that seems a little pedantic for such trivial information. But what if Source A is the true date and they're not ok with that being published? Zaereth (talk) 02:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd quiet agree with Zaereth on this one. IMO we should only publish dates if there is at least one sufficiently reliable secondary source also publishes the date. If they've just decided to trust the Facebook post, so be it. While I do agree it doesn't matter that much if we're wrong, I think it's far better we're not wrong by just not publishing the date. The date doesn't matter so why publish it when no one else cared to? Also I'm not convinced Allmusic is sufficiently reliable for this purpose and even if they are I'm unconvinced it counts as widely published enough. And importantly, I don't think we can take the subject's Facebook post to indicate that they don't care. If anything it's the opposite, they apparently do care if we publish the other date. Whether this is because it's the wrong date or some other reason it doesn't matter. It's not widely published and the subject does care so......... Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB states "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public." In the case under discussion, the source linked to the subject says 2 things on the DOB, and the WP:ALLMUSIC source is arguably not the best/sufficient, so dropping the DOB from the article seems reasonable.

See also Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/Archive_48#Tweets_announcing_"Happy_birthday_to_me!_I'm_21_today!". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure there are many reasons why someone might want to present themselves as a different age to what they actually are in general. But in the specific case of a man in his mid-fifties in the music industry I cannot think of a likely reason that he would want to present himself as exactly one year older than he actually is.

That said, the current situation of just not including a date of birth at all seems like a perfectly fine solution. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If sources do not agree, speculation on why one is better than the other is not helpful. There's an error, but it is not possible to guess where it is. Just omitting the conflicting information produces an accurate article. Travelmite (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I think there are many situations where discussion is very helpful about why one source is better than another when there is a conflict between them. We evaluate sources in that manner all the time. In this situation, there are two conflicting sources from the article subject's own verified Facebook account. As a result, I think it would make to not include the date, at least until there is some way to resolve the discrepancy. – notwally (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

A discussion partly echoing this is ongoing on the talk page of Devin the Dude. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 15:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkin

I am pretty sure he is not, in fact, "JOHN CENA," nor the "Dictator" of Virginia. 2600:1700:59E0:B300:64A6:265C:5A7C:5FDE (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

ItTollsForThee has reverted the vandalism. Thanks so much for pointing it out. Knitsey (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Hanni Pham infobox

Singer Hanni Pham of NewJeans fame is incorrectly described as a dual-national in the infobox which states nationality. The archived discussion page suggests that a consensus was reached, however the curt 3-day timeline suggests this was not the case. The reference is a PhD candidate in Canada who only says "The Vietnamese-Australian singer", much in the same way as Wikipedia refers to Vietnamese Australians. There is no specific mention of nationality or citizenship. That article suggests that Hanni Pham is the target of nationalist abuse, which Wikipedia must avoid inflaming. There is nothing in the article suggesting any considered knowledge of Hanni's citizenship or nationality.

The archived discussion page shows sources are confused, referring to the singer as either "Australian" or "Vietnamese Australian" without reference to nationality. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q113455973 refers to her incorrectly as "South Korean-Australian singer". A comment within the page infobox, at nationality incorrect cites the guideline MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES which only refers to having a dash. The policy is that Wikipedia must adopt a cautious approach, which is not being done. I submit that the Biographies of living persons guideline is being breached. Travelmite (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ethnicity is removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Alan Holyoake

We have an ongoing situation at Alan Holyoake where an IP editor is reverting the removal of unsourced claims about the article subject that violate WP:BLP. See this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You could request page protection if the issues continue and the IP continues to refuse to respond to any messages or talk page discussions. – notwally (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the IP has been blocked for now but this appears to be a long-term thing, so I suspect that may be needed at some point. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)]

I looked at this article, and it does not look notable to me at all. I think it could probably be nominated for deletion.GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Florentina Holzinger

Hello, I would like to report that the page of Florentina Holzinger is being hijacked in its content by an editor inserting partial or false information. The current version, edited by me, is the sourced and verified ones. Is it possible to deny editing the file from the aforementioned editor? Thank you for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giulia Messia (talk • contribs) 08:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

If you'd specify the actual issues that would help. Your version lacks citations and is filled with flummery. Calling information false without specifying what information is false and why it is not true (because all content is supported with citations) would allow editors to actually do something about you concerns. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see what issues are in the article as the content appears to be adequately sourced. I also agree with Traumnovelle that the version you created has far too many issues with it. Please realize that Wikipedia bases its content on independent, reliable sources. If the content in the article is not supported by those sources, it should be removed or changed, but if the issue is that you do not like or agree with what those reliable sources say, then that is not an issue that can be addressed here. Please also read WP:COPYVIO as it appears you are directly copying from sources, such as the sentence "The performance invites the audience to embark on spectacular physical experiences and explores individual spirituality and faith, sexuality and pain, shame and liberation.", which (aside from not being neutral, encyclopedic langauge) was taken directly from the cited source [1]. It appears [2] may have also been plaigarized. I have also left a message on your talk page about copyright violations so that you have additional information. – notwally (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Patricia Tolliver Giles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Patricia Tolliver Giles

Introductory paragraph of the article appears to be vandalized by people violating NPOV policy for biographies of living persons as a result of recent judicial ruling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:800:6D90:4429:A66:EAAF:E563 (talk) 17:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lucas Kunce

Repeated attempts to edit the article to overemphasize and sensationalize a recent shooting incident, violating WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. While the incident is appropriately covered in its own section with reliable sources, editors keep trying to characterize Kunce as being "best known" for this single event, which appears to be harassment through repeated undue emphasis of negative content. Request review and possible protection if problematic editing continues.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aerophilian (talk • contribs) 15:28, October 27, 2024 (UTC)

Anthony Pompliano

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why does search dump to snap chat with no mention of Anthony Pompliano? Music Air BB (talk) 00:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC) I'm not clear on what you're asking; is it that the Snapchat page has no mention of Pompliano? It does, in this section and the following one. Or are you asking why he doesn't have his own page? If so, it's because what we have to say about him so far is best understood in the Snapchat context. That does not mean that he doesn't have enough notability to have a page about him, if someone were to choose to write it (nor am I saying he does have that notability, I haven't checked), but it looks like no one has tried yet. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Discussion started by a now-blocked sock of a blocked account. Can someone uninvolved hat this? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Ian Katz/Justine Roberts

Hi

I am Ian Katz (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Katz)

Both my entry and Justine's state that we seperated in 2019. We have since been divorced with a final order being granted on 18 Sept 2024.

Divorce case No: 1685-0858-5153-1765

I would be grateful if you could ammend our pages to reflect this.

Thank You

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.230.157 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

This is tricky, because Wikipedia generally doesn't accept primary court documents because they can easily be misused, which has historically made it difficult for the divorce status to get added to Wikipedia biographies when it hasn't been covered by sources like newspapers. This resulted in the infamous case a couple of years ago where Emily St. John Mandel had to give an interview to an online magazine in order to get her divorce status into her Wikipedia page. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is here, and I'll let the noticeboard regulars chime in who might have a better idea of what to do. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

While I hestitate to use court documents for these purposes (per WP:BLPPRIMARY), I think a Twitter post or similar self-published source would be adequate under WP:BLPSELFPUB. Forcing an article subject to have an independent source for this kind of personal detail seems pointless, especially given how personal this type of information can be and how much having it incorrectly stated on Wikipedia could affect the person. – notwally (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed twitter, insta, FB etc or official website, these could all work (and editors noted as much in the Mandel discussion, though after she had got Slate to interview her, it happened pretty quickly). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia @Notwally I haven't found any confirmed sm or official website, but I think linkedin would be acceptable in context, provided it says he divorced in 2024, of course. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Susanna_Gibson

One editor wishes to apply a potentially libelous label to Susanna_Gibson. Long discussion on the accuracy of the label did not resolve the disagreement (cf. Talk page). Here's a diff [[3]] at the first entry (I guess) of the use of the label by the editor who is unmoved by the discussion to abandon the label. Pmcc3 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Your slick attempt to remove another editor's comment from the discussion notwithstanding, two editors have concluded that label is supported by the sources. Vagenie1 (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I am surprised to see that and your impugning that it was "Your (my) slick attempt" is misplaced. Looking at the time stamps, as best I can guess, between when I opened the Talk to edit it, the other editor added a comment to their original one, and then when I saved the version I was editing (slowly, intermittently), it over-wrote the one that the other editor had saved while I had my copy open. I don't know how all this works. In this case I recommend the old expression, "better to assume incompetence than malfeasance." Pmcc3 (talk) 01:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I might add a possible solution that would make the issue about the label moot: delete the S.G. BLP and replace it with a redirect to a single-event article (cf. also the discussion linked in the top (yellow) box on the Talk:Susanna_Gibson). Pmcc3 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

It would be original research if none of the sources actually label her as a sex worker. Simply deriving this disputed label because RS label the activities as sex work is an analysis that "reaches a conclusion not stated by the sources" per WP:OR. The more appropriate or less disputed label may be webcam model BTW. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Webcam model is fine with me but worth noting I have provided a list of sources that describe it as "sex work" which is in the introductory sentence. Vagenie1 (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sex work" not "sex worker". There is a difference. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The behaviors can be described without using inaccurate or misleading labels. Pmcc3 (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in. Took me a while to figure out RS = reliable sources (I guess). Pmcc3 (talk) 02:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Both WM and SW are inaccurate in the sense that if I fix some shingles on my roof, that doesn't make me a roofer, or if someone takes videos of me playing volleyball on the beach, that doesn't make me a beach volleyball player. Inaccurate labels to describe the professional history of S.G. indicates a lack of NPOV [[4]]. Pmcc3 (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A bit more on the NPOV concern. I count 18 revisions, most of which are about two words (SW or now WM) that one editor is invested in. I propose that administrators revert the S.G. article to its form on 06Oct24 and freeze it until this discussion about labels asymptotically approaches completion. Pmcc3 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The previous AfD discussion was closed as a redirect‎ with "Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal." Vagenie1, you're the one who removed the redirect. Would you say a bit about what had changed that led you to remove the redirect? For example, do you think she's now notable because of her activism? If so, the relative amount of text in the article doesn't reflect that. It looks like all of the current sources discuss the privately streamed sex videos with her husband that were made public without their consent. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with FactOrOpinion, who I think raises several important concerns.) The way the article is written seems problematic, and the way the lead was framed before I made edits to it was even more problematic. I think the fundamental problem is that this article was turned into a redirect in September 2023 after the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson, and was recreated in February 2024 by Vagenie1, with largely the same article (deleted version vs. recreated version) but a few additional sources about the article subject's advocacy work after losing her election. The administrator who closed the AfD noted: "Please do not convert this Redirect into an article until she is notable for her political achievements and not a scandal". After the article was recreated, there appears to have been efforts to add more and more details about the videos that received media attention into the lead as well as an effort to label the article subject in some way in the lead sentence based on the videos (previously "pornagraphic actress" and now "sex worker" or "webcam model"). Here is the most recent version prior to my edits to the lead. Has the article subject's advocacy work since the election made her notable? I think it's doubtful the news coverage since then alone would satisfy WP:GNG. Even Vagenie1 appears to believe that her primary notability is the news coverage during the election, as they recently removed any mention of her subsequent political advocacy work out of the lead. If she is found to be sufficiently notable based on her activities since losing the election, then we would need to present a balanced, neutral biography, rather than one that is obsessively focused on salacious details reported by news media during a political campaign for a losing candidate. I made the suggestion on the article's talk page to rely more heavily on articles written after the 2023 election, both in consideration of WP:NOTNEWS as well as WP:BLP. – notwally (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The article being recreated by a brand new user only a few months after being deleted is frankly extremely poor form. I've put the article up for AfD again Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susanna Gibson (2nd nomination). Hopefully this time some protection can be applied so the redirect can stick. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone may want to look at Robert Norris (sheriff)

E.g. this edit. Polygnotus (talk) 06:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I have invited the IP here to explain for us outsiders. Polygnotus (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of problematic WEIGHT issues with weak sources and synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I have no clue who that dude is and I haven't looked at the sources but it looks like Robert Norris (sheriff) can use some work. It is using Google Drive as a source??? Polygnotus (talk) 04:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Amy Shiels

Amy Shiels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello, the photo being used for this page is not permitted to be used. I've tried removing it several times, however, someone keeps uploading it. It is not Amy Shiels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wififan1 (talk • contribs) 00:28, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Amy Shiels sings (cropped).jpg appears to be the photo in question. I've never heard of her until today, but after comparing other photos in Google, it certainly looks like her. It was taken at a Twin Peaks event per the description, and she was on Twin Peaks. There's a note on the photo page saying the original photographer on Flickr changed the license, but the CC FAQ says that doesn't affect us. I'm not sure what else can be said? Woodroar (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It is permitted to be used, according to this, CC licenses are not revocable. What is your evidence for It is not Amy Shiels.? Isaidnoway (talk) 13:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DOX in draft articles

• Draft:Ava "Kris" Tyson 1
• Draft:Ava "Kris" Tyson

I am fairly certain these drafts runs afoul of this policy--Trade (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

They run afoul of multiple Wikipedia policies: Unsourced negative material on multiple people. I've tagged both for speedy deletion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps we wanna blacklist the title in the draft space entirely if no one are keeping an eye on it. These drafts have been up since August Trade (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I've deleted both pages. Worth noting that there is an article with some of these details reliably sourced: Ava Kris Tyson. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I just voted in that discussion for deletion. Thanks for pointing it out. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 02:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Net worth

The best solution?

What do we do with claims about the net worth of a living person?

Are any of those websites reliable? Are they just guessing? Rich people hide money and assets, or own stuff that is difficult to quantify in terms of money (e.g. art).

Are some of those sources more reliable than others? I found quite a few for example:

• Financial Review Rich List
• Sunday Times Rich List
• The World's Billionaires
• Forbes 400
• Bloomberg Billionaires Index

If I have an article that contains outdated and potentially contradicting claims like Richard Farleigh, what if anything should be done?

Should we just eat the rich to avoid a future where every rich person has those little and icons in their infobox?

Polygnotus (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

If there are contradictory values then at least one of them are evidently unreliable, and if they can't be reliably sourced then there's not much point in having it. I would thus support the proposal to consume the rich, or at least their infoboxes, as the least troublesome plan of action. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's true in general that if two sources claim contradictory things then at least one of them is unreliable, certainly not for something wooly like estimated wealth. Reliable sources can be wrong. In fact, these rich lists (or at least the ones I am familiar with) are very clear that they are only estimates of wealth based on publicly available information; even if all of them were estimating at the same time with exactly the same information they may not come to the same totals, as they estimate the value of e.g. art and property differently. If they are making their estimates at different times, then there's also the issue that volatile investments such as stocks and shares can have radically different values in even a short period of time – look at what happened to FTX stock in November 2022 for a recent example.

When quoting rich-list placements we should certainly be clear what it is we are saying ("in 2006, the Sunday Times Rich List estimated John Doe's wealth at £X.y billion" rather than "in 2006, John Doe was worth £X.y billion") and I suspect that we should not include these placements in infoboxes as infoboxes inherently lack the nuance required here, but I don't know that having different sources give different estimates is inherently a problem.

In the specific case of Richard Farleigh, I'm not seeing a contradiction: of the two net worth estimates listed, one is undated but was included in the original article in 2006 so possibly is from around then. In 2006 A$160m ≈ GBP66 (exchange rates were at or a little over 0.4 AUD = 1 GBP), so the estimated net worth is pretty similar. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Varying estimates can form the basis for identifying net worth in the sense of a range. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

1995 education reform

1) 1996 "During his trip to the Philippines, H.E. Mr. Sukavich Rangsitpol was conferred an Honorary Degree of Doctor of Education by the Philippine Normal University. His will to reform education and strong leadership in educational management were highly commended." https://web.archive.org/web/20220904100222/https://www.seameo.org/vl/library/dlwelcome/photogallery/president/sukavich.htm

2) 1997 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000114483

3) 1998 https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000141834

Why it was deleted ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.228.198.215 (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• This was part of a large-scale change in March this year by Paul_012 which they explained on the talkpage. As Paul said in that discussion, the previous version was a complete mess. As the article is semi-protected until March next year, you cannot make changes directly as an unregistered editor, but you can propose edits on Talk:Sukavich Rangsitpol. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Paul Weller

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

someone snuck in Paul is a jew hater. Not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.126.81.34 (talk • contribs)

That was WP:VANDALISM and it has been removed. Polygnotus (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I have rev-deleted all the relevent revisions. Black Kite (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Isaac Mass

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is no source other than the website of the law firm, I don't think it qualifies under Wikipedia:Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.207.254 (talk) 19:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaac Mass. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allan Lichtman and The Keys to the White House

My mistake -- I started this thread on the Talk page instead of here. Moving it. Sorry! JamesMLane t c 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Allan Lichtman is a professor who’s received considerable media attention for his formulation and application of The Keys to the White House, a method for predicting U.S. presidential elections. There is dispute about whether his prediction of a Trump win in 2016 was correct. Lichtman says he correctly predicted the Electoral College winner, but some critics say he was predicting the winner of the popular vote, which Trump lost.

Repeated edits to the Keys article have taken one side of this dispute, asserting, in Wikipedia’s voice, that Lichtman was wrong (violating WP:NPOV). What's more, these edits clearly impute dishonesty to him. (From the version current as I write: "Lichtman...claims that in 2016, he switched to predicting the outcome of the Electoral College,[43] but this claim is not supported by his books and papers from 2016, which explicitly stated that the keys predict the popular vote.") I did a major rewrite that presented both sides of the controversy without endorsing either, and made other changes. It was reverted five minutes later.

The basic problem is that there are three SPAs that are fervently hostile to Lichtman. User:Apprentice57 had one edit in 2007 and one in 2019, then beginning in June 2024 made numerous edits, all of them related to these two articles. User:Tomcleontis and User:Caraturane began editing in June 2024 and have primarily edited these two articles and their Talk pages. All three were pushing a then-recent blog post critical of Lichtman, which they wanted to cite.

My repeated explanations of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP got nowhere, so I had to start an RfC. Only one experienced editor, User:Classicfilms, responded. She agreed that BLP applied and that my version was better. Another experienced and previously uninvolved editor, User:LittleJerry, did not join the RfC, but made this edit to remove some of the POV. Apprentice57 reverted. LittleJerry restored his correction, commenting that the POV violation was obvious. This time it was Caraturane who restored the violation.

The three SPAs dismiss the RfC because, according to one of them, a "majority" wanted to keep the attacks on Lichtman. When I pointed out that they were accusing a living person of making a false statement, the response was: "For the record, Lichtman is not being accused of making false statements. He has reportedly, on multiple occasions, made false statements." This blatant BLP violation is defended on the grounds that "[a] strict BLP application to the entire page seems unwarranted."

I'm not trying to suppress the criticism. My NPOV version has a whole section presenting both sides of the controversy without adopting either. Would some other editors knowledgeable about WP:BLP please weigh in? Thanks! JamesMLane t c 16:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We have all engaged in good faith to try to find compromises here, and I refer to the Talk page at large for a more thorough discusion of this, which I also ask independent editors to review. We've also cited numerous independent sources which dug into this discrepancy (not just single lines about his record, but about the dispute itself) and reached the conclusion that he has been inconsistent or dishonest about it:

https://www.imediaethics.org/did-professor-allan-lichtman-correctly-predict-the-winner-of-the-2016-presidential-election-his-own-book-says-no/

https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/10/allan-lichtman-election-win/680258/

Tomcleontis (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

As Tomcleontis says, he and his allies have reached a conclusion, and they want their conclusion (that Lichtman "has been inconsistent or dishonest") to be stated in Wikipedia's voice.

That's not a rebuttal; it's a confession. JamesMLane t c 18:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't me or "my allies"... this is the reporting of independent sources, which I encourage you to read and rely upon. Time and time again JamesMLane has suggested we have all engaged in bad faith just because we push back against his unilateral changes and cite actual sources. This is despite my own attempts to try to find good faith compromises concerning wording, sourcing, etc. but it's really out of control how tooth and nail this has become because of the acts of said editor. Several editors all reached these same neutral conclusions relying on these sources (these are not our own conclusions, other than the plain reading arugment, which is clear), which have reported on this dispute in more depth than any of us could. Tomcleontis (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Looking at the first two sources cited above by Tomcleontis (I cannot access the Atlantic article), I'm not sure how much weight should be given to them, but I think the issue boils down to this quote from the first one: "The fact is, Lichtman’s model did not predict that Trump would win the presidency. It really predicted that Trump would win the popular vote. It’s an inconvenient fact that Lichtman will not acknowledge, as numerous media stories tout his unblemished record." If this is the case, that most media outlets report that he was correct in his 2016 prediction, then that is what should be reported. Maybe there should also be an additional sentence or note mentioning that there have been challenges to the 2016 prediction based on this distinction between winning the election (which is determined by the electoral college) and winning the popular vote, but it seems like even these sources admit that is not the widely-held view of most reliable sources. The edits adding in words like "claims" do not seem appropriate. – notwally (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Was able to get a link to Atlantic that should work, sorry I didn't even think of that. So I think a key part of this problem is the sources that actually report on the discrepancy all come down on the side of 2016 being wrong, but those that only catch the headline don't really say much more and just add a sentence. What is undeniable is that Lichtman's own book and paper from 2016 (including before and after his September 23 prediction) said the system not just only predicted the popular vote but did not predict the Electoral College, this is a point many of the editors have relied upon is that any plain reading makes a pretty clear case. Tomcleontis (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks, notwally, you've identified the crux of the dispute. There are indeed sources criticizing Lichtman for an allegedly wrong 2016 prediction (based on the popular vote versus electoral vote issue). In my rewrite, I cited the most prominent of them, Nate Silver. He's not unbiased -- he and Lichtman have been trading barbs online for years -- but he's a notable person in the field of election prediction. I also linked to the sources relied on by Lichtman's critics, namely writings by Lichtman referring to the popular vote. I also quoted Lichtman's response (he had switched to predicting electoral votes), as well as the independent media that credit him with a correct prediction. That, IMO, is the WP:NPOV way.

  If Tomcleontis really thinks that there's "a pretty clear case" in favor of his opinion, then there's no need to spoonfeed it to the readers. We just explain both sides and let the readers draw their own conclusions. JamesMLane t c 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  I would argue that the critics all identified in the current system are relevant, or at least more thorough than Nate Silver, given a number of them (particularly the Postrider critics, who are not so much critics as reporters on this) are noted as the named Lichtman critics in numerous articles. Julia Azari is also a prominent scholar on these issues and she is cited. The iMediaEthics source is also useful in terms of providing context (though again, another source that is not so much critics, as it is reporting). The Newsweek and Atlantic sources cite many of these critics as well but are obviously the most prestigious sources to comment on this, though I note the NY Post does as well. But yes, I'd love to have some neutral editors review. Tomcleontis (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Comparing the prior version [5] that OP posted and their proposed version [6], I think the proposed version seems far more neutral and informative, particularly the second paragraph of the lead and the "Reception" section, which I believe are the two largest points of contention. – notwally (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I can more comprehensively reply later, but a related issue to all this is that JamesMLane will initiate one conflict resolution process, for instance a RfC on the current 13 keys page, and then when it doesn't go their way they'll initiate another one.

This is not proper. The RfC indicated that most want the article to stay the way it was. We can continue to let people weigh in and perhaps that will change, but that's how it is currently. We already addressed the issue of BLP within. You don't get to relitigate the issue in hopes of a better result by rerolling the dice. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

I know, you claim "majority" because three SPAs continue to fight against Wikipedia policy. That doesn't mean the RfC went against me. JamesMLane t c 01:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The RfC is ongoing, and currently has found no consensus. The three "SPA"s are us who have been maintaining the page in question and part of the discussion that lead to consensus and to the article in its current form recently. That's another process you didn't like the result of and relitigated with the RfC in the first place.

You created the RfC, which I appreciate but it puts some legitimacy to that process in the first place. See it through to the end, wait some time, and *then* wait to reintroduce the issue.

If you want this to lead to admin intervention/arbitration, this is the way we're headed. I don't recognize this Noticeboard discussion as legitimate. Apprentice57 (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The entire framing of this is inherently unfair. It is not that "critics" are saying he was wrong in 2016, it is that reporters are saying he is wrong. It is that his own work says he was wrong. And there has been a pattern of Lichtman's own bad faith efforts: his wife editing the page, him making explicit calls on his live streams to remove critical material, and calling anyone who has ever reported on his inconsistencies (including third party journalists) unethical or liars.

I also strongly resent this notion that any of us are fervently hostile to anyone, we've all tried to work in good faith to find consensus with JamesMLane, which seems to result in a unilateral act or a persistent resort to an RFC or other noticeboard request. This is despite attempts by Tomcleontis to find compromise, my own good faith efforts to find compromise wording, and repeated pleas by many involved to take a step back for some time to let tensions simmer down. Caraturane (talk) 15:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The amount of space dedicated to retelling (in a biased fashion) the inside baseball of the past arguments on those talk pages rather than BLP itself I hope makes evident to onlookers isn't actually about whether the page adheres to BLP requirements or not. The editor in question wants backup on implementing their version of the article when they failed to get it in the *ongoing* RfC (4-2 against their changes, at time of writing).

On the meta issues, I won't respond comprehensively so as to ratify this as the proper venue for this sort of thing (it isn't). I'll only say that coming to a contrary position on whether the page constitutes a violation of NPOV/BLP isn't actionable. We (the editors JamesMLane complains about) have all been part of the original discussions and consensus that led to those edits in the first place, and have repeatedly tried to find common ground with them on this. We will continue to do so.

Important context is also that we have our guards up for editing the article in the way they ask to do so, as it would move the page to one explicitly desired by Lichtman. He has personally attacked his page and the 13 keys page because they do not recognize his 2016 call as correct. One of his interviewers even tweeted at Jimmy Wales himself about this about getting the page edited. Later, a new user with the same name as his wife attempted to edit the page themself. Shortly after that last incident, JamesMLane began their aggressive pattern of behavior to remove the reporting (not criticism) Lichtman objected to.

On the issue of BLP (assuming it applies here for sake of discussion, which it does for Lichtman's own page but is not immediately obvious for the 13 keys page), I think this may be an unusual situation for editors here to come across. The dispute at hand is whether the facts are so clear that we can recognize that Lichtman's model was wrong in 2016 (as wikipedia does not "both sides" issues to present a false balance: see how it covers issues like climate change (I am not comparing this to Climate Change, I just need a clear inarguable parallel)). This is a proverbial high bar, but I cannot see how we *don't* clear that: Lichtman went on record on the eve of the 2016 election in a paper to say his model (still) predicted the popular vote: "As a national system, the Keys predict the popular vote, not the state-by-state tally of Electoral College votes." Lichtman used similar language about this consistently until after the 2016 election. The journalists at the postrider point this out very well https://thepostrider.com/allan-lichtman-is-famous-for-correctly-predicting-the-2016-election-the-problem-he-didnt/ (this piece is mostly citing and quoting Lichtman's own record, and I use it just for that limited purpose here), later repeated by the Atlantic et al. Lichtman called the popular vote for Trump in that same paper, and then Trump went on to lose the popular vote.

I think the focus on media sources tends to miss the forest from the trees when we have such a smoking gun from the author himself. Nevertheless, we have previously pointed out that the sources that tend to recognize him calling 2016 correctly tend to be opinion articles with less editorial oversight, or use it as an introduction to his credentials and then dedicate the vast majority of the article to his model regarding 2024. The postrider, the Atlantic, others cited above, etc. are the only pieces I'm aware of that look into his record and they ratify the incorrect call that the wiki page currently recognizes. If there are media sources we are missing, especially those that interrogate his record and come to a contrary conclusion, then I welcome those coming to light.

In short, BLP requires editors to recognize when there is a dispute and to present all sides of said dispute. But there did not seem to be a dispute from Lichtman on this point until after the 2016 election (which is irrelevant when it comes to predictions, and when he has a perverse incentive to not recall his history accurately) and there does not seem to be a dispute from current media sources interrogating his record.

There are always other ways to make the article better, James and another editor here have pointed out that "claim" is problematic language and not suggested by the Manual-of-Style. This is something I would take no issue to amending to less charged language. I would have already made an edit if not for the section being under discussion in the RfC. Apprentice57 (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Your characterization of the RfC is incorrect. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the role of this Noticeboard is incorrect. Your touting of your prior role seems to disregard WP:OWN. Your personal attacks on Lichtman are utterly irrelevant to the question of what the article should say. As for the WP:NPOV violation, you continue to tout one side of the controversy -- a side that we can and should report, as my neutral version does, without our needing to take a position. If, as you contend, there is no dispute, then any reasonable person reading my neutral version will see where the preponderance of the evidence is, right? JamesMLane t c 02:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect how? Are you claiming there is consensus reached by the RfC? Are you disputing that there are 4 top level "support version 1" and only two "support version 2" at the time of writing? I tout no prior role, only prior consensus you seek to undermine because you didn't participate and disagree with it. And there are no personal attacks on Lichtman, I think you may be taking anything that doesn't prop up his record as insulting on his behalf, for some reason.

Wikipedia does not both sides issues when the facts are clear. Argue against that on the merits or present your own sources with investigation of his history to counter it. We have been through this over and over again, and you don't get to be the gatekeepers on this. Apprentice57 (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

JamesMLane t c 16:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)