Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Lucas Kunce

    [edit]

    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)

    Imane Khelif

    [edit]
    WP:NAC: The massive violations have been WP:REVDELed, and the worst offender has been indeffed. Please continue with civil talkpage discussion, which appears to be ongoing. Re-post here as necessary when consensus fails. JFHJr (㊟) 23:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Massive BLP violations by IP editors in the talk page. Would like more eyes on it... possibly could be blanked by an admin if judged appropriately. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Section for reference: Talk:Imane_Khelif#New_Evidence_Published_In_French. Supposed leaked medical documents were published by Le Correspondant an "independent" French newspaper that isn't listed in WP:RSP. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    lots of coverage of highly salacious stories regarding algerians, morrocans, liberians, etc.
    Cannot find much else about it on google. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if I would call Le Correspondant a newspaper... More like a group blog, the American comparison that comes to mind is InfoWars but its not entirely as bad. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of the article is also the outlet's President and Director of Publication (via Google translate), which raises concerns about SPS—and should automatically disqualify it from being used for a BLP claim. Woodroar (talk) 20:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this site fails the sniff test for WP:BLP sourcing. It's got no responsible editorial oversight, and as Horse Eye's Back said, it's rather unsavory. It's sensational and it's offensive. But if you want true WP bureaucratic condemnation, seek opinions also at WP:RSN. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite frankly any story that is parroting other sites based on a "leaked medical report" should be presumed unreliable given that such "leaked medical report"s are generally not verified. TarnishedPathtalk 11:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unverified, unverifiable, and if true perpetuates an invasion of privacy (think criminal/civil issues, but not for anyone here, just a nightmare for the subject/victim/plaintiff). True or false, its inclusion would make Wikipedia look pretty bad in a BLP way. JFHJr (㊟) 03:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Unless the subject suing the shit out of publishers/parrots becomes itself noteworthy. And also WP:NOTNEWS a bit, as even that is developing. We shall see. For now, I stand by the above. JFHJr (㊟) 06:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The linked BLP doesn't just not mention these questionably-sourced claims, it implies any such claims are false. As someone not familiar with the subject matter, that seems to be maybe too certain, and a consequence of politically-charged controversy. It might be a good idea to re-run those RFCs now that a little time has passed. 76.24.20.188 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no implication that any claims are false. The lead clearly states that "no medical evidence ... has been published" which is factually correct and supported by sources. TarnishedPathtalk 02:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @EvergreenFir, do you think the "neither-nor" comment requires WP:OVERSIGHT? Thanks for your input. JFHJr (㊟) 07:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A lot of the conversation on article talk is not compliant with WP:BLP or WP:MEDRS and, considering the intersection I would kindly ask an administrator to review whether revdel is required at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies, @ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry to yank you into this discussion. But could one of you please revdel the worst of this? Or give a word here why not? Thanks as always. JFHJr (㊟) 02:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. If these comments prove anything it's the tedious repetition of callousness and ignorance on the part of the now-blocked editor. As far as I'm concerned they should be blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did block indefinitely as a standard admin action on top of the AE block that EvergreenFir placed. After looking through their contribs it's pretty obvious they were here to fight against the woke mob, violate BLP, and chew bubble gum. I'll let you guess what they were all out of. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I made a revdel. Email me any specific diffs you'd like me to look at. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ScottishFinnishRadish, @Drmies thank you very much for what each of you has done. This diff is outstanding. Ctrl+F for "neither" to find the part of the multi-post I'm referring to. And if you're reluctant to revdel that, I will drop the stick and continue to appreciate your attention and the actions you've taken. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you yet again. JFHJr (㊟) 22:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Jasser Auda's Bio

    [edit]

    This is Jasser Auda writing. Reporting misinformation posted on the wiki bio page carrying my name. There is a few people collaborating to spread misinformation, which I will pursue legally if they insist on their behaviour. I was born in Egypt but I am a Canadian citizen, and I do not have, carry or use any Egyptian documents whatsoever, I have no Egyptian ID or passport or any other document other than my birth certificate. It seems that those who insist on writing that I am an "Egyptian Scholar" think that this gives me less rights to defend myself as a Canadian citizen. Also, the professional information on where I teach and currently affiliated to as a professor is outdated, and when I updated them someone obscure quickly revents them! Not sure who insists on replacing current information on my academic positions (where sources are public and verifiable) with outdated information. Wikipedia must be alert to corrupt-governments' hired spreaders of misinformation - this is the only way I can understand the behaviour of those anonymous editors! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasserauda (talk • contribs) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings and sorry for the consternation. It looks like you've made the edits you're essentially requesting above. However, you should not be editing the article about you. See also our conflict of interest policies, and WP:ABOUTYOU if you need further help right now. You should also retract your legal threat above and absolutely refrain from making more in the future. Please do talkpage the issue or bring it up here, while declaring your conflict of interest as you did. JFHJr (㊟) 03:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. There sure are a lot of primary sources in this one. It appears to approach WP:RESUME. Opinions, anyone else? JFHJr (㊟) 03:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would likely support AfD if there aren't any additional secondary sources to establish this individuals notability. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    There is someone or a group repeatedly adding misinformation to the Wikipedia article, especially on the "Controversies & legal issues" and adding sources that are related to the sub-headline, but NOT targeted to the living person. One user I noticed who kept doing so is User:BerwickKent. Hoping this issue gets resolved. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikhilrealm (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Matt Gaetz

    [edit]

    After discussing the following two NPOV issues on the Talk page:

    and receiving feedback from other editors supporting changes to this prose, my changes were reverted citing WP:ONUS. I'm restoring my edits based on WP:BLPRESTORE and seeking further feedback from the community. Kcmastrpc (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Kcmastrpc: There is absolutely no way that I see a consensus for your changes. WP:BLPRESTORE also appears to be specific to article deletions, the policy you're looking for is WP:ONUS, which I believe calls for you not to restore your preferred version after TarnishedPath reverted it. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    this appears to be the version from before the content dispute, and should probably remain at this version per WP:STATUSQUO. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, BLPRESTORE is not specific to article deletions, I don't see how that could be interpreted from said policy. I've raised serious NPOV concerns with the disputed content. This being said, if editors feel it should be restored, by all means do so, as I'm not going to cross the 3RR line. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you were rebuked by multiple editors including TP and Drmies. It also doesn't look like your "other changes" (as you mentioned here) were discussed beforehand. You change a lot more than just the "far-right" wording in the lead. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both talk page discussions are linked above. Which ones are you referring to as being undiscussed? Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLP is not a blunt instrument that you get to use as a cudgel in content disputes... I think you might be abusing the spirit if not the letter of the policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Knock it off with the aspersions. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you're attacking me for offering the uninvolved opinion you brought this to a noticeboard for? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd encourage you to focus on the merits of disputed content rather than whatever your thoughts are on the invocation of policy. Sure, you're welcome to comment on anything you like, but I'm not going to just take blatant aspersions on the chin. Kcmastrpc (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wanted to talk about article content but not policy this is the wrong venue "This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content." and here I think that while you are right in applying the letter of the BLP policy you are not within its spirit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually on second reading I think you might have issues with the letter of the policy as well... Unless I'm missing something you didn't have consenus for those edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, both discussions he links to have opposition from multiple established editors before he made the changes. I've gone and mostly reverted them ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'd argue that this goes against the spirit of BLPRESTORE as this material is highly controversial and UNDUE considering the allegations were neither corroborated or prosecuted. Editors seeking to include it in the lead should need to gain consensus per BLPRESTORE and ONUS. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where it gets tricky is that you didn't just remove stuff... You also made changes and significant additions. Gaetz is also a public figure, so it doesn't matter if its corroborated or prosecuted or not... That would only matter for a non-public figure. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    BLPRESTORE addresses more than just removal. The objection isn't to the inclusion of the content in the article, it's specifically about the excessive and sensational coverage in the lead -- as that's an UNDUE issue. Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The inclusion of the content you introduced appears to have been objected to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The restoration of the changed content appears to have been objected to. So, what's next? Kcmastrpc (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As frustrating as this is going to be to hear I think that whats next is you go back to the talk page and you try to get a consenus one way or another, in hindsight it would appear that escalation to the noticeboard was premature (especially if this is as you say primarily about due weight). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    GoDG, I think in this case ONUS and BLP favor removal, not restoring. I don't see a consensus to have this content and it's clearly disputed with a number of editors on both sides of the issue. Perhaps a RfC for inclusion is the correct answer. Springee (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But, as Horse Eye's Back points out, he didn't just simply remove stuff. So in this case, WP:STATUSQUO should apply, which favours this version. Agree that an RfC may be the correct path here. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  19:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If new content was added that should also be discussed and potentially left out. Looking at the talk page history it's clear that this content has been disputed in the past and I don't see any discussion that reached a keep in the lead consensus. Springee (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    especially the "far-right" dig in the opening paragraph. Totally uncalled for. 2601:580:4580:9F30:C147:966E:51E8:2377 (talk) 20:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Refer to WP:BLPPUBLIC and WP:WEIGHT. We don't go with what random pundits think is "uncalled for", we go where reliable sources take us. TarnishedPathtalk 06:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "Donald Trump and fascism"

    [edit]

    "are like peas and carrots"
    "are like bread and butter"
    "are like blackjack and hookers"

    Attack page on a BLP subject, title is WP:NPOVTITLE

    CSD G10 may apply. Formerly titled Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism, moved on November 6

    Egregious attack page, AT BEST merged into Public_image_of_Donald_Trump#Political_image and redirected.

    Relevant policies:

    Compare and contrast:

    Skullers (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I can agree with possibly moving it to the public image page, as there are a lot of different criticisms beyond just comparisons to fascism. I think Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt could be a good model, as it has a section titled "Criticism of Roosevelt as a "fascist"" GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FDR died in 1945, even WP:BDP doesn't apply there (142 years since birth). Skullers (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Skullers, honestly this is verifiable I don't think it violates BLP. I think the content doesn't warrant its own page though, which is why I point to the way we have handled the criticisms and accusations of fascism in another U.S. president. All of the various criticisms can be grouped together into one page. If everything about FDR can fit into one, certainly Trump is not more significant. I think @Masem was following what I meant, and I agree with their comment on the matter. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 15:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is well and truly covered by WP:BLPPUBLIC. TarnishedPathtalk 04:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TarnishedPath is correct. And if @Skullers thinks the article should be deleted, WP:AFD is the correct forum, not here. JFHJr (㊟) 05:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD's already been tried. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism. Don't know the protocol for trying again a month on, but would expect trouble. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While you're at it, there's Age and health concerns about Donald Trump, set up to parallel age and health concerns about Joe Biden, Which was AFD'd and kept. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there you have it, @Skullers. WP:Consensus indicates it's not a G10 problem after all. JFHJr (㊟) 17:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the other hand, WP:NOTNEWS says we should be far more summary style in how we are presenting current events. We don't need to document every single instance or opinion put out there, but should be aiming for how this will be viewed by academics in the future. There's arguments for significant trimming on all these pages such that they can be grouped into a single page like with the above Criticism of FDR. Masem (t) 17:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    NOTNEWS does not say that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." "Also, while including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." "Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to overly detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goals scored warrants inclusion in the biography of that person, only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." Masem (t) 17:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And how do you get from there to "WP:NOTNEWS says we should be far more summary style in how we are presenting current events"? NOTNEWS is not telling us to treat recent developments differently from other information... Its telling us to treat it the same, not in a more summary style. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't put words in anyone's mouth, but perhaps the point above is that the WP:WEIGHT of each topic of (apparent) criticism (YMMV) is undue when spilt into independent articles. It's a defensible opinion, though I do not agree. JFHJr (㊟) 18:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, that would be a fair opinion but better suited to AFD than here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed @Horse Eye's Back! And a closure of this discussion comports with the consensus actually reached at AfD. I'd support anyone who wants to close this now. JFHJr (㊟) 18:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're all definitely connected, and the essay Wikipedia:Recentism and Wikipedia:Criticism covers these issues. The content (particularly the Trump/fascism article) is fully appropriate and necessary, as these are points oft-repeated in sources and essential that we have that content. But we have to be aware that as WP editors, we should be careful about jumping on every single point raised by sources that would support those ideas, particularly in the short term. If we were writing this all 10 years after the events, for the first time, we would definitely not be as detailed as some of these articles have now, and some may be more footnotes in history (like Trump and golf), while others could be major factors. But we should let time figure that out, and use caution in the short term particularly in piling on criticism reported by reliable sources. Masem (t) 18:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are WP:NODEADLINES here. We can actually wait 10 years and see. JFHJr (㊟) 18:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that we are actually nearly ten years out from the stuff that happened before the 2016 election (when we seem to have the first really serious coverage of the topic). It doesn't feel like a long time but even 2020 isn't in the scope of "recent developments" "current events" or "breaking news" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ┌───────────────────────────┘
    Simon below makes most of my point. If there are academic sources, we should focus on using those and try to keep close to what they are saying that to us our imperfect "expertise" to try to deduce how significant we may halthibk a topic is, particularly if we are using news media for that basis. And to add that with a divisive figure like Trump, it is really easy to let slip in personal and media biases to make one think a topic us more important than it really is or will be in the future. Again, to stress, content on Trump and fascism is clearly DUE, but to what level of coverage we should give it (and thus whether it needs a sepearate aeticle) should be reviewed. But definitely not AFD. — Masem (t) 14:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well its not an attack page... G10 doesn't apply... Which leaves us with NPOVTITLE and to me the current title doesn't run afoul of anything there, we seem to have a non-judgmental descriptive title. Can you explain your position? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just wanted to note, as I mentioned at article talk for that page not long ago, that there is substantial nuanced academic discussion regarding the relationship between Donald Trump and fascism. I've provided an example of the first few articles I pulled up on Google Scholar and, yeah, there's definitely a page's worth of academic work there. I would caution editors to stick to high-quality sources rather than newsmedia opinion pieces and to expect the article, if properly neutral, should not conclude either that Trump is or fascist or that he is not. The terms of the academic debate on the topic would not support either conclusion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an attack page in the sense of being G10 deleted. The title might have NPOV concerns; I can see why some people would view a title such as "Donald Trump and accusations of fascism" as more neutral. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Hasan Piker

    [edit]

    Could I get some uninvolved input here? Starting from this section, we have some pretty wild claims circulating freely about the person in the article. In particular, I'm wondering if certain accusations concerning rape are worthy of WP:REVDEL, or if I should just delete them myself but leave them in history, or if I should just not touch them.

    Apparently there's a feud/harassment campaign (depending on who you ask) going on, related to the so-called "adpocalypse" on Twitch, which may explain some of these newer edit attempts. Ultimately however, that's all just Internet noise - what I'm concerned about is following BLP, which as I understand is pretty important on Wikipedia. LaughingManiac (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    the controversy around israel palestine generally should not be touched by anyone who isnt EC yet anyways. most parties in that thread dont seem to have 500 edits yet Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I hadn't thought of the fact that this would be PIA. Although thinking about it, doesn't that mean the Hasan Piker article should be ECPd?
    My question regarding what should be done with the allegations made on the talk page isn't really answered by this, but thanks in any case. LaughingManiac (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    no. only if the article is mostly about israel palestine is it ECPed for that. there is mostly an honor system for articles that intersect with it only marginally…
    if an admin warns a user tho and the user continues to do edits despite not having ec, sanctions are sure to follow. see also WP:ARBECR, only edit requests are allowed Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    im not an admin so cant revdel. if the discussion isnt going anywhere any uninvolved participant can close the discussion Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, thank you for your help. I guess I'll see where this thread goes with regards to my other concern, while keeping an eye on the talk page over there to check if anyone contributes in the coming days. LaughingManiac (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing wrong with the talkpage discussion. The discussion itself isn't libelous and doesn't need to be removed, let alone revdeled. It's about allegations the subject minimizes topic of rape. It isn't about rape itself, and the allegations themselves appear noteworthy when it comes to other notable persons. Their mentions' WP:DUEWEIGHT in this subject's article is fine to discuss on the talkpage. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is something wrong. Since it's about Israel/Palestine, it requires ECP to edit, and therefore the only person in that discussion that should be discussing it is FMSky.
    FWIW I also agree this should be REVDELed for BLP reasons unless strong secondary evidence for the claims can be found. Loki (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, these accusations seemed to me to clearly run afoul of the bar of "reasonably likely to damage a person or company's reputation" from LIBEL, since no one cited any RS to support them. With that said, I am inexperienced, so I will keep feedback from here in mind, regardless of my own agreement with it. LaughingManiac (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no comment on rev-deletion but I've removed the discussion, as noted by Loki only FMSky was able to take part in it. Also just a note that any editor who is allowed to engage in the A-I topic is free to give an alert. And while only an admin can give a logged warning, any such editor is also free to give a warning as required. One the editors involved has already been alerted previously and in fact was even finally warned. If it hadn't been around 20+ days since their comment I would have pinged an admin about them. The IPs, while I've sometimes given alerts to IPs it's often fairly pointless unless they come back. Since one IP did post 3 times, I did alert them. LaughingManiac, while I personally feel it was okay for you to bring this here, you need to stop discussing it now. ARBECR applies here as well. Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, thank you for removing the claims, and letting me know what I should do. I'm satisfied - closing this discussion, as well as the one still in progress with the IP, which runs afoul of the policy, should probably be done.
    One additional question, just so I'm clear on this and keep away from this area: when you say "ARBECR applies" and that I should stop discussing it, this means that I (as a non-extended confirmed editor) shouldn't discuss any of it, on any project page, including to inform others of the restriction, and only make edit requests if I have specific changes in mind, correct?
    Because for full transparency, I did take part in two distinct redirect discussions that are related to the topic area (here and here). Should I avoid doing this in the future? LaughingManiac (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    probably, until you have 500 edits. Admins don't care too much about newbies accidentally breaking the WP:ARBECR rule if they didn't know, but they do care if someone has been told or made aware, and continue to edit on talk page/discussion/articles. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    as a non-EC user, you can probably only do WP:EDITREQUESTs and not much else. If all you want to do is inform someone of the WP:ARBECR ruling, I would not know if that's allowed or not, but i doubt any admin would care. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Then I'll be sure to stay clear of that topic area for content discussions from now on, and will probably just notify admins if I see egregious rule-breaking with no responses concerning the subject, rather than attempt to explain rules myself.
    Thanks for all your help, it's very much appreciated! LaughingManiac (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I will say that CTOP aside, I do think the discussion was clear a problem since it made strong allegations about a living person with zero reliable sources. I came across something removed from the article but the only source seemed to be WP:FORBESCON. While it's sometimes okay to start a discussion in the form of "can someone find sources", these need to be handled with care. Especially in the case of a BLP, they should be very limited and IMO generally shouldn't be about such contentious issues. As it stands, even if the one or two comments were okay the discussion had IMO gone on for long enough with no one providing sources so it was past the point where it seemed useful but instead seemed to be heading in the direction of WP:Forum or WP:Soapboxing about the subject. Again I make no comment on whether revdeletion is justified. Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mohammed Deif

    [edit]

    There's a Schrödinger's cat situation with Deif. His article previously presumed him to be alive, but a recent report by a newspaper, citing Hamas sources, alleges that the group now acknowledges his death. However, Hamas has since issued a statement denying this. Per WP:BDP, we should assume he is alive until a RS confirms otherwise. Given that the report relies on claims which have been rejected by the named source, it seems insufficient to meet the required threshold of verifiability. There is an ongoing discussion involving me and The Mountain of Eden with more details here. Eden argues that the newspaper report is enough to consider him dead and the subsequent statement and denial by Hamas doesn't change this, and I disagree. It seems unlikely that we will agree so I would appreciate additional feedback to know if my interpretation of the policy regarding this situation is wrong. Thanks! - Ïvana (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just enough imagination to see that both might be true. Not alive or dead, of course. But one Hamas source says one thing that is contradicted by another. Think of their operational condition at the time of publication of each claim for death or "we didn't say that". The death probably doesn't yet belong in the lede or infobox or categories, but may appear discussed with WP:WEIGHT in the prose. Long way of saying it's okay to state in wikivoice we aren't sure to an encyclopedic extent what his current status is, per reasonably reliable sources. JFHJr (㊟) 04:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The current version of Samantha Lewthwaite might be an example of how to approach doing this. Short and sweet, not WP:UNDUE. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, not a good comparison. For Samantha Lewthwaite, all we have is a relative saying they think she might be dead. That's obviously not sufficient to satisfy WP:BDP for listing her as dead.
    In the case of Mohammed Deif, we have a reference saying that a body was found and examined, and is believed to be that of Mohammed Deif.
    We have another reference quoting an official statement by the group that Deif belongs to contradicting the reference saying that he is dead, even though the reference quotes unnamed members within the organization.
    IMHO, the credibility of a reputable journalistic source (at least as far as I know, the reputation has not been questioned) is higher than that of an official statement of an organization that has a stake in the the information it disseminates. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I think that, for the purposes of WP:BLP concerns, we must assume he is still alive. However, for the content of the article, a phrase such as "presumed dead" could be suitable. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Joe Flood (policy analyst)

    [edit]
    WP:NAC. Boomerang. Please post anew if this comes up again. JFHJr (㊟) 04:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Another editor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_Eppstein has gutted all the significant content in this article, which is about 30 months old, leaving only a stub. He does not engage in any discussion of specifics, instead threatening to seek deletion of the article if I reverse his extensive changes. These have included complete removal of long sections and publication lists, and my recent edits.

    His very sparse comments appear to suggest that a) he doesn't think the content of these sections is "encyclopaediac" [he does not mention notability]. b) he seems to think there is a CoI because of my username (I am lost on this one)

    To clarify, there is no CoI; I am a biographer and publisher, while the subject of the article is a mathematician and policy analyst.

    I have restored the two longest sections he has removed, to permit discussion here and throughout the dispute process; they are "Australian career" and "International career".

    I want to know how to get this editor to desist (and also, if his extensive deletions have any basis) Evadeluge (talk) 06:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Evadeluge. I agree with David Eppstein that your additions are promotional in tone, violating the Neutral point of view, a core content policy. So, please do not restore your content until you gain clearcut consensus at Talk: Joe Flood (policy analyst). Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, OK we have done that once already, several years ago when it was first written (see Talk on the article). The modified text you see was accepted by all involved.
    I do think that if the subject of an article makes a substantial real-world contribution, and demonstrably so, this should be included in the text. It is done all the time for pop stars, arts figures, politicians and others, so why not for researchers, managers and others? They suffer from a fairly profound disadvantage at wikipedia and often find it hard even to be notable. Several times, I have had to turn down women who are really quite eminent and real trailblazers, who ought to be in Wikipedia, but can't demonstrate notability, sad. Fortunately, Dr Flood has had fairly good media coverage throughout his career.
    If you have suggestions as to how to improve the tone, I am happy to oblige. Otherwise, I'll have another go at it. But that does not imply wiping out whole sections and leaving only pointless trivia, as this editor has done. He should instead have used or a Puffery tag if he felt that way, I would have been notified and there would have been no need for conflict resolution, dont you think? Evadeluge (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you care to expand on the following statement: Several times, I have had to turn down women who are really quite eminent and real trailblazers, who ought to be in Wikipedia, but can't demonstrate notability, sad.
    It looks for all the world as though you are an undeclared paid editor talking about potential commissions. Axad12 (talk) 10:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Further info on plausible COI in relation to user Evadeluge can be found in the discussion currently underway at COIN, here [1]. Axad12 (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll note Deluge means Flood, and is also in the name of a company associated with the subject. This isn't even clever. CU came back affirmative, so it's just a matter of waiting for the block. It can be a long wait, but it's not quite forever. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but Evade Luge means simply to get out of the way of a snow vehicle, surely the wise thing to do. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wisdom! Let us be attentive! JFHJr (㊟) 03:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    yes I am aware that Dr Flood owns a very small publishing company called Deluge Publishing, you can easily look that up. I believe it has published only two books in more than ten years. So what? Evadeluge (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that's simple. As I already stated, there is a gross shortage of articles about senior women, who are effectively discriminated against through the notability requirements. Women in Red has called for more articles on senior women. I know at least four senior women who are certainly eligible, but I can't find enough newspaper references to put forward articles on them. That is sad. Evadeluge (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Michael Williams (bishop)

    [edit]
    WP:NAC: Wrong forum. This is not a deletion forum. No BLP issues exist regarding authorization. JFHJr (㊟) 00:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Bishop Michael Williams is a living person working in the Anglican Church of North American and did not authorize this article. Therefore requests it be removed from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.48.109.37 (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtesy link Michael Williams (bishop) Knitsey (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Greetings, IP anon! I'm not sure why you premise authorization in regards to encyclopedia entries. But I assure you, authorization is neither requested nor required. It's not clear who is requesting removal due to your anonymity, but please see WP:ABOUTYOU if you're interested in contacting Wikipedia in the capacity of an article subject or their representative. For any living subject's biography, we have inclusion criteria according to reliable sources. Otherwise, please see WP:BEFORE and WP:AFD to pursue your deletion options. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Talk:Stephen Jolly

    [edit]

    There's discussion happening at Talk:Stephen Jolly#Jolly's removal from Victorian Socialists expansion, and Election Party Altercation inclusion about whether contentious material covering unspecified "serious allegations" should be covered in Stephen Jolly. Input from other editors would be appreciated. TarnishedPathtalk 13:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    John Prunskis

    [edit]

    Attempt to add sources as images has not been allowed. Also the close connection seems to be incorrect as i have viewed this page recently and saw many more lines of text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calidrs (talk • contribs) 01:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Images of certificates hosted on Wikimedia Commons (like File:25yrs.jpg) are not reliable sources: we have no way of verifying that they are what they say they are. If the Castle Connolly Top Doc award in Interventional Pain Management is an important part of Prunskis' career which Wikipedia should be including in its article, we should be able to find a better source than that.
      As for the connected contributor: it seems reasonable to question whether someone who has edited almost solely about Prunskis, and has uploaded eight images of him and awards he has won to Commons, might have a connection to Prunskis. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Can an "honorary consul" for a small country serving in Aspen, Colorado and in South Florida be accurately described as a diplomat? I do not think so. Cullen328 (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Marianne Williamson

    [edit]

    Citation #5 for the statement claiming Ms. Williamson ran in the 2024 democratic primary against Joe Biden does not include any information supporting that statement. The Associated Press article only discusses Joe Biden running for president in 2024.

    Please remove this citation or correct it in whichever way the site moderators usually do. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:6962:8700:39B9:4B4:EEAF:6583 (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for catching that! I've replaced the citation with a different one that supports the statement directly. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 20:30, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pam Bondi

    [edit]

    Who the hell posted this about the AG? What is wrong with Wikipedia?? 108.39.64.27 (talk) 23:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure which specific problematic edit you're referring to, but controversial figures frequently attract vandalism. No need to worry, the article is being monitored by regular anti-vandalism patrollers and has been protected for now. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 00:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    James Howells

    [edit]

    I'm planning to create an article on James Howells missing Bitcoin. At first I thought it should be a BLP at James Howells, now I'm thinking it should be an event-based article instead due to BIO1E/BLP1E? Something titled as James Howells missing Bitcoin or James Howells Bitcoin fortune? Any suggestions appreciated. Just a bit stuck for titling and where to start draft... CNC (talk) 10:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe just the BLP name, James Howells. He is the guy who lost his bitcoin at the dump and sued England right? Sometimes it is hard to justify notability for a person that is only notable for a single thing. But I think your other suggestions for James Howells' missing bitcoin is probably ok too for a title.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    James Howells would likely end up at AfD over BLP1E - for good reason I think - hence best avoided. He is only notable because he supposedly lost some coins a while ago. As for coverage, fixed the talk page draft (forgot to create the draft), so with 10 years of coverage over this evolving event, it seems due an article similar to other missing treasure based articles. I get the impression that such articles shouldn't necessary include a BLP name either, but instead something like "Newport landfill missing Bitcoin"? Howells would redirect to that article, it seems this would be a more accurate common name than including his? CNC (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Newport landfill missing Bitcoin" makes it sound like the landfill doesn't have Bitcoin (and even that it's sad about that fact). Perhaps Bitcoin lost in landfill"? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. This why I came here asking for help over title, as I'm not good with these things :) I agree Bitcoin lost in landfill works, maybe "Bitcoin lost in Newport landfill" or "Bitcoin lost in Docksway landfill", is better, more precise? Otherwise the article suggests it's based on all Bitcoin that has ended up in landfill, and thus the scope would be too broad? CNC (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My beliefs are:
    1. There are no other articles here on bitcoin losses in landfills that we need to differentiate from
    2. If a second case was to arise, it would almost certainly be compared to the Newport case in question, in which case it would probably make the best sense to integrate it into the same article (perhaps moving it to ...landfills) as coverage of a phenomenon rather than making articles for each separate incident.
    But that' just my view, and I would certainly understand feeling otherwise. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you do me a favour and just move my draft to a better title for me? CNC (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I moved a draft to Draft:Bitcoin missing in Newport landfill so think I'm good now. If anyone can think of a better name, can always be moved afterwards I figured. Probably overthought the BLP issue here. CNC (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CommunityNotesContributor My issue with that is that it reads in a very newsy way, so not encyclopedic. That is the title of a news heading, not an encyclopedia article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I came here :) Any better suggestions? I'm all ears, given this is now effectively a WP:BEFORERM. CNC (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vito Tanzi

    [edit]

    Tanzi effect Author of the Tanzi Effect the link to Prof Tanzi’s (that used to work and was very detailed highlighting his achievements/career) has been deleted I was wondering if the previous version can be restored? 108.51.65.27 (talk) 21:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Vito Tanzi was deleted in 2009, over 15 years ago, for blatant copyright violations. Are you posting here and now about the article from 2009? I'd say the answer is no, and you can start from scratch without violating copyrights. I found no significant removals in the last 5 years from the theory article that you linked. Please clarify your request. JFHJr (㊟) 01:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP revdel required

    [edit]

    [2] Traumnovelle (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, Traumnovelle. Cullen328 (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:People acquitted of corruption has been nominated for deletion

    [edit]

    Category:People acquitted of corruption has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1259143672"