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.

Murray Hill (performer)

This article has an inconsistent use of pronouns to describe either the performer or the character being portrayed, depending on the section being read.

The current version of this article has female pronouns in the introductory text and male pronouns in the biography section. It is unclear from initial reading which gendered pronoun should be used, or whether multiple pronouns should apply to this person and used interchangeably.

If this is an example of kayfabe, the article may need to be rewritten to provide greater clarity as the title currently states "performer" but the biography section may be referencing a persona, which can cause confusion.

Furthermore, the edit history for this article shows a repeated altering of the gender/pronouns for this article by third parties, but only in certain sections and which are often quickly reverted - further adding to the confusion. See the Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history section for details.

This is not a request for deletion, but someone with greater knowledge of this person may need to provide accurate, up-to-date information to prevent repeated edits by overzealous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.83.25 (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 17, 2024 (UTC)

• This article appears to provide a good overview -- it uses he/him pronouns to refer to him, and he states in the interview "I'll pick out a man in the audience and say, "I'm reading your mind, sir. You're thinking, Is it a man or a woman? Sir, the answer is no."" The pronouns in the intro appear to have been changed to he/him, which is probably correct given it is what is used in an LGBTQ-positive magazine (i.e. not going to be something deliberately misgendering him). Mrfoogles (talk) 17:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Mark Carney

Mark Carney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some extra eyes on this would be nice. Stickhandler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added a "controversy" section to the article (after being reverted) that is based on a single sentence from a single source, which doesn't even focus on that supposed "controversy". This is entirely undue weight, and even though I feel justified to remove it again per WP:BLP policies, I'd be more comfortable if someone else did. Stickhandler refused an offer to self-revert. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

They are now repeatedly reverting my changes to the article, ignoring WP:ONUS in the process. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have now stepped in. The other editor is claiming on his talk page that his repeated reinsertions of this material are not an edit wa and criticizing the above poster for acting "entitled" to take the concern here. More hands would be welcome. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Robert Rosen (writer)

This is false and possibly libelous: "In 1981 Rosen stole copies of John Lennon's diaries from Frederic Seaman, Lennon's personal assistant, and tried to sell them to Jann Wenner, editor of Rolling Stone Magazine." The footnote for this information, "Double Theft-Rosen Testifies" is a dead link. 2603:7000:3802:27B4:ECF7:7654:9C02:DACF (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

the article does not seem notable anyways. should probably be deleted Bluethricecreamman (talk) 23:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the diff where it was introduced yesterday by an account created yesterday. Then it was reverted today by an account created today, and reverted back again today by an experienced editor, AntiDionysius, who I'm hoping will join the discussion and explain how they decided that the current version is accurate.

Normally, we could check the archived copy of the reference, instantkarma.com, but unfortunately, the Internet Archive is not available right now due to a DDOS attack. Offhand, I don't know that instantkarma.com is a reliable source for anything. The Washington Post says that Seaman pled guilty to grand larceny for stealing the diaries and other material from Yoko Ono, but that's distinct from Rosen allegedly stealing from Seaman or vice versa. Per WP:BLPCRIME, I don't know that either allegation should be there, and it certainly shouldn't be presented as a fact. Per "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced ... must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," I'm going to remove it, and it can be reintroduced if appropriate later, after further discussion. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Rosen did send a copy of the manuscript to Wenner, who told him he couldn't do anything with it because Rosen had no proof. This is all addressed in the first chapter of his book. I'll open a discussion on the talk page since no one else has. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. When I said "the current version," was referring to this one. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Hayley

This article got the name of the person they are covering wrong - her name is Jane Haley (only one y at the end, not after the a). How can this be corrected?

Source: every quoted article on the page itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8D40:417C:34E6:5BF4:8C27:DDBF (talk) 07:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah, but only since 2021 :/ Afaict you're absolutely correct, so I moved the article, it's now at Jane Haley. Thanks for noticing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Jilly Kelley

Jill Kelley is a biography that could use some attention from thoughtful editors with no particular interest in the subject but an interest in NPOV and getting things right. There's some discussion that I posted on the talk page but the tldr is that there's a claim in a reliable source that her charity went bankrupt, but there's also good reason to think that may not be precisely right - per the form 990, it spent all the money donated to it down to the last penny, but there's not really any evidence of filing for bankruptcy. For a few years after the "wind down" (I'll use that for lack of a better term at the moment) it appears to have been revived. I've recommended to the subject that she contact the Huffington Post for a correction, but that may or may not ever happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wording has been changed from bankrupt to defunct, which is supported by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times and Town & Country magazine, refs in the article. Per the Tampa Bay Times - "According to state corporate records, the group was dissolved in 2007". - Gale A308382313. Isaidnoway (talk) 15:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that seems to deal with the issue very effectively.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Axl Rose

Axl Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I’m reviewing old edits, I can see the tabloid entries were removed in agreement. That information has made its way back in using unreliable sources. A section has been made called “Legal Issues” and another “Lawsuits”. How is this relative to the entertainer’s notability? His biography reads like a personal attack and in every conflict situation and every accusation made, he’s assumed as guilty. The sources are mostly music blogs using clickbait headlines. Demsuz (talk) 06:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The subject of an article must be notable, but there's no expectation that the article's contents are limited to the subject's notability. If you see content that is sourced to an unreliable source or a self-published blog, or where the ostensible source doesn't actually back up the claim, you should remove it. If you think that there are missing viewpoints, you can add them. If you think that the amount of text devoted to his legal issues is WP:UNDUE, you can edit it, or wait to see what kind of discussion your post on the article's Talk page -- only opened yesterday -- leads to. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your direction. I did remove twice and it was put back twice. We reached no agreement on the Talk Page. I am seeking more help. Demsuz (talk) 21:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

There’s an option for editors who want to expand on stories that stans have an obsession with and that’s to make a separate page. The average person cannot make sense of every non-essential story about him when trying to understand his life and perspective. Demsuz (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the material and while there may be some claims with dubious sourcing (I deleted one where the claim did not match the source), looking at the bulk of sources, I'm seeing both good general sources (Associated Press, the Washington Post, the Deseret News, the L.A. Times) and good music-specific sources (Rolling Stone, Spin, MTV News, Billboard, etc.) I'm not saying that absolutely nothing should be trimmed, but it is hard to assume that legal matters are not worth our attention when the are being covered in significant and reliable sources. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

To Demsuz, I took a brief look at both the changes you made and at the article as a whole. You're correct, in an article about a celebrity it's really difficult to keep people from inserting every little bit of trivia they can scrape up, no matter how small. We have policies in place to keep this stuff in check, so pay attention, because this will help you with your talk-page argument.

The main policy we have to mitigate this sort of thing is WP:NOPV, and in particular WP:Due weight and WP:Balance. I'd suggest reading those policies very carefully. Outside of Wikipedia, "notable" means people are interested in it; that is, it's noteworthy. To avoid confusion between this and Wikipedia's definition, I'll use the synonym "significant" to mean this definition. If something is significant or noteworthy, people will write about it in reliable sources, because that's what they do.

I think a lot of people come here with a mistaken idea of what an encyclopedia is, and what one is for. An encyclopedia is not a place for excessive detail. They're quick references designed to give the reader the basic gist of the story without having to read the whole damn story. They're brief summaries, and summarizing --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty, focusing on the most significant aspects of the subject. Weight and balance is how we keep most trivia out of celebrity articles.

What weight and balance means is we take all the sources that exist about a subject and divide up the info like a pie chart. Things that get the most coverage are the most significant and deserve the most space in the article. Things that are less significant get less space, and those with the lowest significance doesn't deserve any. It all depends on the amount of public interest in whatever that thing is, which we can measure fairly accurately this way.

Balance in addition can refer to how the info is arranged in the article. It's like, if you load all the heavy cargo in the back of the boat it will likely sink, but if you evenly disperse the weight the boat will be better balanced. Similarly, putting all the bad stuff in a section titled "legal issues" is like putting all the heavy stuff in the back of the boat. Better would be to work these things into the timeline of events so it's more balanced throughout the article.

Weight and balance are best determined by those who edit the article regularly and are familiar with all the sources, so it's best to take this to the talk page and work it out there. If nothing else, throw down some good arguments for others to read, because once you do that, if you still can't come to a resolution, then you can try our dispute resolution process, such as WP:NPOVN, WP:RFC, or WP:DRN. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 23:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful explanation and it’s written beautifully. This was very helpful and encouraging. I will reread this a couple more times and see about how that info can be integrated throughout the bio. I appreciate the kindness editors like you give when you share your wisdom and experience. Demsuz (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I took your suggestions and put a notice on the Talk Page. I hope editors can rework the page to balance the biography. It has a GA rating. Demsuz (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The problem is Rolling Stone online will use click bait articles and opinion pieces unlike what they publish. Demsuz (talk) 13:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Vexxed

This has been raised before (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive354#Vexxed) but I'm still unconvinced by this article, firstly whether they are actually notable or not, and secondly that their death is currently sourced to Reddit. On the other hand, removing that would suggest that they're still alive, which doesn't appear to be the case but pretty much everything regarding this is on social media and therefore unreliable ... Black Kite (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Reddit is an unacceptable source for a death, I reverted those edits. Also agree his notability is questionable, some of those sources look sketchy. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Florentina Holzinger

i am Florentina Holzinger, a choreographer, theatre and opera director from austria. recently one of my shows, which deals with women in relationship to the history of the church, gets hijacked from the conservative and far- right movement. since then i am a victim of cyber hate and bullying and the tabloid press. i just detected that also my wikipedia entry (english) got altered recently as a consequence by an internet troll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger The current describtion does in no way represent my artistic work. Please compare here the english and german versions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florentina_Holzinger

I ask you to urgently remove this offensive and wrongful entry about me and my work.

Thank you Florentina Holzinger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.19.38.85 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

You should be more specific given everything is well-sourced, as lurid as the claims were. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Richard Curtis urgent Edits

Dear Editors / Administrators

I am Richard Curtis's assistant. For 6 months now we have been trying to edit his page so that it is up to date, relevant and correct. Every time we have made adjustments they have been deleted and old notes reinstated. Richard is about to receive a humantiarian oscar and so its imperative his page is up to date and lists his campaigning achievements.

Please could you let me know how we can resolve this asap.

Account in question [Richard_Curtis] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portobellostudios (talk • contribs) 09:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I see you have made a request for changes at Talk:Richard Curtis#Updating Richards Page. That's in principle the correct way to go about this, but I suspect that particular request is not going to go very far – you seem to have suggested the removal of a lot of text, primarily that which might reflect poorly on Curtis, with no explanation beyond much of what is written is a little out dated or doesnt list his campaigning achievements fully. You'd do much better to suggest one change at a time, and give specific reasoning for it.

For instance, one of your suggestions is to delete the sentence While at Harrow, Curtis directed a school performance of Joe Orton's play The Erpingham Camp; this controversial choice was given the 'green light' by his classics master, James Morwood. Later, Curtis commented that Morwood's support had helped him understand that it was all right "to push boundaries and to be funny". This is supported by an article written by Curtis himself, and seems to have direct relevance to Curtis' later career; I don't understand what your objection to it is.

Other suggestions (e.g. that the entire "controversy" section be deleted") I do understand why Curtis would not want them to be included, but "Curtis doesn't like it" is not a compelling argument from Wikipedia's point of view as to whether they should be included. As it is it just looks as though Curtis wants to hide any record of potential criticism, which Wikipedia editors generally don't like. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion to Delete Categories Affecting BLPs

There is a discussion that may be of interest at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_15#Category:American_people_who_self-identify_as_being_of_Native_American_descent related to a previous BLP discussion here (Patricia Marroquin Norby) ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive360#Patricia_Marroquin_Norby . If you have the time and interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Whitewolfdog1 (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere

This article has a strong, negative bias against Max Lugavere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8480:2EB0:9C35:3934:A6FF:3CB9 (talk) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Without going into specifics, I'd merely note that it is entirely possible for a biography to be strongly negative, and still comply with Wikipedia policy, if the negativity is the consequence of following what published reliable sources have to say about the individual. Beyond that, you'd have to be more specific, if you want anyone to take action here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

• I've never heard of Lugavere before, but like many Wikipedia articles about dietary writers, this one has problems (although not the most egregious). It appears to use a pre-ordained framing to build references and structure, and sacrifices nuance for an urge to 'debunk' claims or overemphasize the fringe. First: the lead: it's top heavy, and over-emphasizing things that aren't mentioned in the body: "supplements to 'supercharge' the brain" are not mentioned in body, and nowhere in the OSS article is it explicitly stated that Lugavere's views on supplements are not supported by scientific evidence. Secondly, the Little Empty Boxes section makes the WP:SYNTH inference "was negatively reviewed by critics" apparently by simply cherry-picking two negative reviews (from outlets of dubious reliability). A few seconds of Googling finds several Tomato-meter Approved Critic reviews including a positive review from IndieWire, a positive review from an LAist film critic, and a couple more generally positive reviews (here's another) that are likely not Wiki-reliable sources, but arguably of the same caliber of "Movie Jawn" and "Loud and Clear Reviews" currently cited. What is needed is a good deep dive for sources, including print newspaper sources, to more fully and fairly describe the subject, his views, and productions, without giving undue weight to particular critics or elements. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • An addendum, one of the major contributors to the Max Lugavere article and its talk page is also a major contributor to Lugavre's article on RationalWiki, which may explain the underlying tone I perceive, which is "this guy is fringe, so we'll go with that, even if the sources aren't around to call him fringe". --Animalparty! (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

    We can see he’s been exposed for his bait-and-switch maneuvers on his website. “ He tells you that his book has “no bias” (an impossible task) and “no B.S.” He writes, “I’m not selling anything. (Seriously!)” Except he is.

    He sends you an email about these amazing sunglasses to help you filter out the blue light that keeps you awake at night. He knows the founder of the company personally, just so you know, so you can grab a pair and save 20$. He’s also really worried about airborne particles causing Alzheimer’s disease, so he reached out to the manufacturer of a fantastic air filter, and you can purchase it for 299$ instead of 599$.”

    [1]https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/quackery/brain-health-max-lugavere-and-bait-and-switch-maneuver

    Demsuz (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarification on when to refer to incidents as antisemitic regarding BLP?

In regards to List of antisemitic incidents in the United States, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime? Furthermore, would it be a violation to refer to something as antisemitic if there were never charges or investigations into the incident as a hate crime, even if sources refer to the incident as antisemitic /potentially antisemitic?

Thank you in advance for your time. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If there's sufficient sourcing for a label we can use the label. If there's not, there isn't.

Convictions really are a special better quality of evidence for accusing someone of a crime, so we certainly shouldn't be saying someone committed a hate crime without a conviction. But they're not necessarily the best source on the elements of the crime by themselves. So if sources agree a crime was antisemitic we can still say that even if that's not present in the original conviction. Loki (talk) 03:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the former, WP:BLP policy is absolutely clear: we don't assert in Wikipedia's voice that a living person committed a crime unless and until they have been convicted of such. Whether the events involve antisemitism or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, I tend to believe much of the racism we see today is perpetuated by the media. It just makes a story much juicier if you can put a racial spin on things. There are incidents that are truly racially, ethnically, or religiously motivated, but I have a sneaking suspicion it's not nearly as much as we're led to believe.

That said, "antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime. There must be more to the story that involves a real crime. Or incident. Because an incident does not necessarily imply a crime was committed. I find "incident" to be a rather overly-broad term here, because it could literally mean anything. I often find lists like these to be rather problematic because they become dumping grounds for anything that some editor even remotely believes fits the bill. As any good psychology book will confirm, at the heart of all racism is categorization. Categorization lumps real individuals under a narrowly defined label, or "stereotype". The title of the category is the sole, defining characteristic of anything placed in it, making it a very powerful propaganda tool, so great care must be taken when categorizing people. A list article like this is just a form of categorizing, and it's far too easy to become the very thing you fight against.

Where it becomes a BLP issue is when living people are involved. For example, the first one on the list names a non-notable person as being a part of this incident, and per things like WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPCRIME, and WP:AVOIDVICTIM, etc., we shouldn't be naming non-notable people like that, especially if the incident is a crime and they have not been convicted. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

""antisemitic" is not within itself a hate crime"

This was specifically what I was trying to get at when asking this. Apologies for not making my initial question quite clear, I was struggling to find the proper wording.

According to WP:BLP policy, is it acceptable to refer to an "incident" as antisemitic, even if no one has been convicted of a crime? Is that acceptable or should it be treated the same way as WP:BLPCRIME? Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If a preponderance of reliable sources call an incident antisemitic, you have grounds to call it antisemitic. Hate crimes that lead to a conviction as hate crimes are much more rare than incidents that can be reasonably described as antisemitic. But that's not quite the same thing as calling a specific person antisemitic. -- asilvering (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

If someone spray paints "Death to the Jews" and swastikas on the wall of a synagogue, and then throws a firebomb though one of its windows, that is an antisemitic crime even if no one is ever arrested or convicted for it. Unsolved crimes are still crimes. Cullen328 (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Loki and AndyTheGrump, and I think I agree with asilvering and Cullen328 too, even though the latter two have some disagreement perhaps. But it can be both be true that an event is an unsolved crime, and described as an unsolved crime by RS, and that no living person is accused but not convicted of a crime that would be BLPCRIME and not PUBLICFIGURE. That's the problem with hypotheticals. I disagree with Zaereth, I think we need to trust the RS, whether they are news media or other RS like books and journal articles, when they use a racial or ethnic lens to look at events. As far as Butterscotch Beluga's question, I believe it's clearly being answered here that "antisemitic" isn't a crime necessarily, and if and only if RS call someone antisemitic, Wikipedia can do that without running afoul of a BLP bright line. Andre🚐 07:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

We can already see some problem in the article as it stands. For example, the incident listed for 5 October 2024 has three sources, none of which calls the incident anti-semitic in the body of the article in the source's voice (one of them cites police as saying it was antisemitic.) And it's tricky because while the incident involves a visibly Jewish person getting punched, and antisemitism thus seems a likely motive, Jews aren't immune to stray violence from other motives. Should someone be charged, it would be a BLP concern for us to have that linked with antisemitism without specific evidence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

That is a matter for the article's talk page. I am not the author of the article. The question was whether, per OP, is referring to/labeling an incident as antisemitic a WP:BLP violation if they weren't convicted of a hate crime. The answer is that if RS call it antisemitic, that is fine even if not convicted of any crime. I think the fix to the situation you talked about it is simple, simply attribute the claim to the police, and the problem is solved, assuming what you say about the sources is true and no others exist (I didn't check). Andre🚐 07:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is an anti-semitic incident that is not a hypothetical and no one was arrested or convicted because the two perpetrators were killed by law enforcement: 2019 Jersey City shooting. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that this was an antisemitic incident? Cullen328 (talk) 07:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I sure hope not. That is pretty clear, and no BLP issue as you point out. But I think OP was talking about a situation with a living perp who hasn't been convicted. Then there is the question of whether BLP applies. Andre🚐 07:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to conceive of circumstances where a living individual is charged with a crime that some sources have labelled antisemitic. In such circumstances we may need to exercise caution, as stating that an antisemitic incident occurred can sometimes be tantamount to stating that individual charged actually committed a crime. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Attributing it might be fine in an article on the crime. But we're talking about a list called "List of antisemitic incidents in the United States". It's not "List of possible antisemitic incidents in the United States". This suggests anything in the list is something that can be called an antisemitic incident in wikivoice the same as if we were to add a category. Which by your own admission we can't do since we need to attribute it to the police instead. I actually agree with the wider point that I don't think we need a hate crime charge to call something an antisemitic incident. I think like terrorism but unlike rape or murder, antisemitic incidents is normally taken to mean something different from crimes where living participants are convicted of hate crimes related to antisemitism. So RS widely calling it an antisemitic incident in their voice is enough. But if the only thing we have is police called it antisemitic and even RS weren't willing to do so in their voice (and they was never any antisemitic related convictions) then IMO it clearly doesn't belong in the list. Nil Einne (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. -- asilvering (talk) 14:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Onision

There has been disagreement over whether to include some accusations in this BLP. Herostratus is opposed to the information being included while Shamus248 and Sink Cat support the inclusion. We could use some wider input. I don't really have an opinion on this as I am not familiar with how this has been handled in other articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight being given to conviction of non-public figure

In the article Larnoch Road murders the conviction of the former detective for drug dealing is mentioned twice in the article, including at the very top. The user doing so has used edit summaries such as 'Place detective Franklin's drug problem up front' and 'This pot smoking detective led the botched prosecution'. Discussion on the talk page has not been useful. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Louise Glover

An AfD on this subject recently closed as keep, but the delete !voters were concerned about issues of balance, harm to the subject, etc - if noticeboard regulars could have a look and clean this up, that would be welcome. -- asilvering (talk) 19:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Article: Louise Glover

This article is in urgent need of being updated. These are the issues it currently has.

1. It has multiple dead links, and it doesn't include up to date information on the subject. It lost its good article status in October 2023 for these exact reasons.

2. The article is not balanced. BLP's should always be balanced, and the criminal convictions listed on this article, although true, may give viewers the wrong impression about the subject.

3. The subject of the article, I would argue, is relatively unknown. If they are relatively unknown, then per BLP guidelines, only material relevant to their notability should be included. In addition, material that could damage their reputation should be treated with care.

In summary, this is an outdated article with old citations that gives an overly negative impression of a relatively unknown figure. The information about their criminal convictions is damaging and has nothing to do with its reason for being notable. There was recently a 3rd deletion discussion, and while deletion may not be the answer, this article does need editing. Above all, I believe that leaving the criminal convictions on this article is disproportionate given the subject's relatively unknown status and given that they are considered spent under the rehabilitation of offender's act.

If someone could review the article as soon as possible with the intention of cleaning up the sources, and removing the legal issues, then I think it would go a long way towards balancing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svenska356 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Alex Breingan

Hello there. I am wondering if any editors can help assist. I am very familiar with this story due to the coverage here in New Zealand. An editor who is closely linked to the subject has shared a fair statement on the emotional stress that this Alex Breingan has brought to the subject here [2]. Upon looking at the article itself, every single note about the financial issues and legal issues are cited from just one reporter. This is not giving it a neutral POV at all as per the rules with Wikipedia. The only other reporter out of the section talked about a website that was setup and questioned here [3] and about the recievership issues [4] but every single else source is from a single reporter under the Media Insider section of the NZ Herald. This needs to be adjusted and fixed so it's neutral. It's not fair on the subject with a single reporter writing these articles which the subject hasn't even talked back about them being true or not.

The comment earlier claims that they aren't true, alot of the facts. Thank you. Can any experienced editors go and take a look at this? The friend of the subject has asked if the article can be deleted. If this is an option, can this happen? Thank you. It's just very unbalanced, the entire article and shouldn't be mostly cited from one single reporter. The New Zealand Investigation section should be cited from the source of the people doing the investigation, not from a reporter who is reporting everything about the subject. And the furniture purchases is completely a civil issue, not related to his company. --MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely a crappy article (which are legion on Wkipedia), with the financial/legal issues over-emphasized, overly-detailed (WP:VNOTSUFF) and written in pedantic Wikipedia:Proseline, as if every single news article warrants a new paragraph. The section should be consolidated into a couple paragraphs, to summarize without being so tedious, although some will probably scream "whitewashing!!!". --Animalparty! (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, I trimmed a bit. What also worries me is the archive.ph links which violate copyright being used as a reference rather than as an archive link and some close paraphrasing:

The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment's Integrity and Enforcement Team stated that while Breingan is already under consideration for prohibition, any additional breaches of the Companies Act reported to the Registrar of Companies would prompt a review, with enforcement actions considered in line with their established enforcement approach (Wikipedia)

While Mr Breingan is already under consideration for prohibition, in the event further breaches of the Companies Act are brought to the attention of the registrar, enforcement action will be considered in accordance with our enforcement approach (Original)

In September 2024, the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment's (MBIE) Integrity and Enforcement Team confirmed that they were investigating Breingan's suitability for prohibition under Section 385 of the Companies Act 1993. (Wikipedia)

[IET] is currently investigating Alexander James Breingan’s suitability for prohibition pursuant to section 385 of the Companies Act 1993 Traumnovelle (talk) 04:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. The single reporter reporting on pretty much all of the issues on the subject is concerning. It does need to be narrowed right down as far as I am aware. It's very unbalanced in this section. A policy on wikipedia is about having a Neutral point of view. This isn't the case here at all. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. MonkeyMonkeyHere (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You weren't far off the mark. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigi Wimala

• Sigi Wimala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Timo Tjahjanto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Sigsterz (talk), who claims to be the subject of the first article, has edited these articles to say the subjects are no longer married to each other. We may have a case similar to Emily St. John Mandel's, and I'm wondering what they can be advised to do to avoid having to be interviewed by Slate and just satisfy WP:ABOUTSELF. Nardog (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

As a stop-gap measure, I edited the latter's body text to say they "married", rather than "are married" or "were married", so it's not inaccurate while we seek sourceable information. Here is an interview from 2022 in which Wimala says she is "alone" (from machine translation). OTOH, I do find this 2022 article that appears to refer to them still being married later than the editor's statement of a 2021 divorce, but it's such a short list item that I don't trust it as a serious source. Here's one from early 2021 that talks about how solid their marriage is. 2023 article that still refers to them as married (but also lists what appears to be a Twitter handle for her, so that could be checked for earlier statements.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Irene Tracey

Irene Tracey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There have been a handful of substantial additions to Oxford's Vice-Chancellor's page (5k+ bytes to a 30k byte article), mostly by one user, covering Palestinian solidarity encampments and protests happening at the University of Oxford over the past 6 months or so. This would appear to me to be undue weight; however I shouldn't be editing this page and would appreciate someone with a neutral POV who can review.

If someone were willing to take a look and consider what might be appropriate, that would be appreciated. As always, happy to discuss further or provide any additional information/links that would be useful. Liz McCarthy (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)