Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.


Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

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



Ann Coulter and a conspiracy theorist CAT tagEdit

The Ann Coulter article includes a CAT tag for American_conspiracy_theorists[1]. I'm concerned that this violates both BLP and CATDEF. The category itself contains a warning about it's use on BLP subjects. The problem here is that we do have sources that say Coulter has promoted the white genocide conspiracy theory with respect to white farmers in South Africa. In the article body we do not have attributed claims of sources calling Coulter herself a conspiracy theorist and we certainly don't call her that in Wiki voice. WP:BLPCAT states, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. " I don't see that we have risen to that standard in this case. Conspriacy theorist is always going to be a difficult category per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT since rarely does the subject call themselves a conspiracy theorist and thus we are left with the question how many sources are required to say that, per CATDEF, the label is a "characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] the subject as having". Since it is clearly a contentious label and the use effectively states in wiki-voice that the subject is a conpiracy theorist I believe this is a BLP violation. Grayfell disagree and has restored the tag. We are the only two participants in the discussion thus a very local NOCON situation exists[2]. Is this tag a BLP violation? Springee (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

To summarize what I said on the talk page, sources support that she is a conspiracy theorist. Right now this is specifically regarding the white genocide conspiracy theory, which is unambiguously a conspiracy theory. There are also other sources for this regarding the unfounded (and debunked) October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Conspiracy theories, which is that they were perpetrated by a "leftist" or leftists. ([3],[4], etc.) So who exactly is contesting this label? How, exactly, is this "contentious"? Merely being unflattering is not sufficient for something to be contentious, because this is an encyclopedia, not a public relations service. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
The problem is you didn't provide sources that say "she is X" only that she promoted a given conspiracy theory. None of what you presented would meet the standard to apply that contentious label in wiki-voice which means we can't apply a tag which says the same. This is why CATDEF says that to apply a CAT it must be commonly and consistently applied to the subject. A few sources applying the label with respect to something in 2018 doesn't hit that bar. If you think we have hit that level why doesn't the lead say she is a conspiracy theorist? Springee (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd like to point out a similar issue on another article. Andy Ngo is categorized under "Gay writers" and "LGBT people from Oregon" even though these aren't defining characteristics and the sources don't discuss these specific characteristics. –dlthewave 15:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't call either a contentious or subjective claim (Ngo would probably agree that he is gay, an LGBT person, a writer and from Oregon). I also would agree that both are examples of over categorization. LGBT people from Oregon as a category seems to directly conflict with WP:OCLOCATION. WP:OCEGRS mentions Category:LGBT writers. I would presume if a person doesn't notably associate their writing and their LGBT status then that person shouldn't be in the category. Springee (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I wish more editors were more willing to have a healthy relationship with reality. When people spread conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy theorists. Our articles should inform readers accordingly, as indeed this one does -- and then a navigational aid does no harm at all. Definitely not a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

You have just argued for OR and that we should apply contentious labels on BLP based on such OR rather than on the usual RS process. Springee (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Except that sources do support this. There is no OR here, since it's per many reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
If this is the case it should be easy to show that sources commonly call her a conspiracy theorist. Springee (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it should be controversial to say that we should only describe people as a conspiracy theorist if reliable sources describe them as a conspiracy theorist. It seems pretty simple that contentious labels are the last place we should be sticking our OR. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Coulter is, per many reliable sources, an advocate of conspiracy theories. Stating this in simple terms is not automatically contentious. Describing this as a contentious label, as a way to remove it, would be concealing accurate information merely because it makes some people uncomfortable. As an encyclopedia, our goal should be to cut through euphemisms and explain things directly. Whether or not this is a flattering description is irrelevant to its accuracy. Saying "I don't think it should be controversial" is merely implying that your own opinion is common sense, which is unpersuasive. Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you are making a strong case for including that, per sources, she has perpetuated something that has been called a conspiracy theory. The article reflects that. However, we distinguish between someone who has perpetuated a single conspiracy theory and someone whom RS consistently and commonly call a conspiracy theorist. To use the tag you need to show the latter, not the former. Springee (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a strong point. There are people like Alex Jones who are absolutely conspiracy theorists because RSes routinely say that on the part that people like Jones constantly are discussing numerous disproven theories. But if all we have is that we know from sources that a person has spoken to support of a single conspiracy theory but does not support many, nor frequently discusses their support of this one theory, that's a stretch in terms of calling them a conspiracy theorist, and unless there's strong RSes that have opted to call that person directly a conspiracy theorist, then it would be an OR/BLP problem to call them that as well, and definitely to catalog them that way.
Also to Grayfell's statement "As an encyclopedia, our goal should be to cut through euphemisms and explain things directly." this is not true when it comes to controversial aspects about a topic, particularly about a BLP. There's too much thought and intent from editors nowadays that we have to lay out "shame" on BLP and other topics that are frequently put down and written negatively about in the press. WP's goal is to summarize sources and provide a neutral, impartial coverage of the topic, and for most controversial topics, this means that we cannot "explain things directly" as that breaks neutrality, instead leaving it up to the reader to decide. WP is not meant to have a moral stance on most issues, and while I'm sure most editors here agree that conspiracy theories and misinformation are bad things, we cannot let that tone be taken up by Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
We don't yet have evidence (from what is posted here and at the Talk page of her bio) of her supporting any conspiracy theories. We have provocation and contentious statements from Coulter that are sufficiently grounded in known information and avoid the conspiracy-theoretic part of the topic (e.g., white genocide plot, false flag) to not qualify, while in some cases also being a step or two removed from an actual conspiracy theory. Nebulously-close-to-conspiracy-theory is not conspiracy theory and certainly not for CATDEF. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • We don't put people in conspiracy theorist categories unless relaible sources consistently describe them as such. If it can be reliably sourced that they are known for spreading or repeating one or more conspiracy theories, that can easily be mentioned in the text. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • We should not be categorizing Coulter as a "conspiracy theorist" without this exact wording in sources. Sources saying that she promoted things that we know to be conspiracy theories is not the same thing (it has to be a defining trait of someone to call them a "conspiracy theorist", rather than, say, unknowing promotion of some conspiracy theories). — Bilorv (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

"White genocide" section of her bio is weaponized SYNTH, sources don't supportEdit

The factual premise, that sources indicate Coulter is a White Genocide Theorist, is not supported by reading what is cited in her bio, and her own statements are weak sauce that lack the conspiracy-theoretic elements cited in the white genocide article. Nothing about Jews, Kalergi plan, the UN/Davos/Bilderberg, or other shadowy agents conspiring; nothing about white extinction, no connection of the situation of whites in different countries as part of a single phenomenon, no references to "Western civilization" or WHITES WRIT LARGE in some global sense.

In every case where Coulter does use the word "genocide" it is always significantly qualified or indirect or indicating what someone else said, or does not talk about "whites" (or even "whites in South Africa") in toto. Given the number of books and articles in which she has published her views on this, that no clear claim that whites are being genocided has emerged is a strike against the idea that she supports any conspiracy theories related to this. Where she assigns blame and motives to people responsible for mass nonwhite immigration, specific people and groups are named, with documentation provided. No unlikely conspiracy is imputed much less a global one involving Jews, alien lizards etc.

The sources (SPLC and one of the Vox links) that directly comment on "white genocide" in relation to Coulter only state that her statements are *consistent with* the theory, which is to say, they understand the libel laws, and that nothing she published quite fits the description. Other sources merely quote the one word "genocide", not any full sentence from Coulter that would support the charge of conspiracy theory.

It's very weak sauce and her bio article should be fixed to remove the SYNTH. Sesquivalent (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oct 2018 mail bomb tweet is even weaker as a supposed "conspiracy theory"Edit

Since Grayfell pointed to October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts#Conspiracy theories, I checked the sources. In response to a bomb alarm at CNN, Coulter posted a tweet (https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1055121317911965696?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) that does not directly refer to the series of supposed mail bombs or who sent them. Whether she "really" meant to comment on that or what the tweet was saying about it is open to interpretation, but this is a couple of steps removed from the "false flag" conspiracy theory. The sentence in that Wikipedia article listing Coulter as one of the people spreading the false-flag theory (or whatever other conspiracies) is wrong and is not supported by the sources cited. The sources have their own problems, and in any case, speculation (which Coulter did not necessarily engage in) about who committed a crime before any suspect is identified is not what is WP:COMMONly called a "conspiracy theory" unless it involves, e.g., an actual purported conspiracy. Sesquivalent (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Andy Ngo and sexual orientation catsEdit

I'll keep this as a subthread since it started above although it has nothing to do with the original issue really. Per WP:BLPCAT Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.. While the first is clearly met I'm unconvinced the second is. I had a look at the source and while there is quote from the subject of being a member of a sexual minority it doesn't seem to establish relevance and I'm not convinced the earlier part on him coming out does either although it could be argued that the response to it is part of what brought him here. IMO we need better sources and an expansion in the article if we want to continue to include the sexual orientation cats. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

It's probably just as misapplied as it is for half of the people in that category. There are reliable sources that discuss his sexuality being relevant in some vague sense: He is gay and Asian, which, qua Milo Yiannopoulos and Candace Owens, enables his supporters to deploy the rhetoric of liberal identity politics and victimization against the left,[5] but his sexuality isn't really relevant to anything he writes, so it does seem not to be a particularly important intersection for him. I'm not so sure though that this is really a BLP issue so much as it is a (less important) overcategorization issue. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

You're correct there are a lot of shitty article. Unfortunately a lot of people think it's okay to dump living people in whatever categories they think remotely fits. We get a similar problem with birthdates and other such stuff. There's no excuse for it and on BLPN we should not ignore shitty articles we're made aware of just because there are a lot of shitty articles.

And it is a BLP issue otherwise it wouldn't be explicitly mentioned in our BLP policy. While he clearly identifies as gay, it doesn't mean he likes being categorised in that fashion. Plenty of people do not feeling it pigeonholes them or whatever. While what a subject may prefer does not directly affect our coverage, this demonstrates just because something is technically true doesn't mean we don't cause harm by how we present the information. We've decided that we should not use categories of that sort when they are of no relevance to their notability because they can affect a living person in numerous ways such as that I mentioned.

That said, with the Buzzfeed News source, I'm fine with letting this stand for now since while BLP requires that "the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources", I'm unsure how to interpret the intersection of this with next two sentences. (If the relevance is in sources but not in the text, is that serious enough to warrant removal?) I also seem to recall allegations I think either from the subject or his supporters some of the attacks have been at least partly homophobic in nature.

The particular point of the BLPCAT requirement is from memory of previous discussions to avoid the problem were people go dumping someone into the cat just because they can find some source showing self-identification when there's no relevance to what they are notable for and indeed few people who've heard of them would even be aware of it. (I would say this happens more with religious ones than sexual orientation once since given long oppression etc, non-heterosexual sexual orientations tend to receive a lot of attention whereas religion can be a case of 'They're A? Oh okay, interesting.')

Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's okay BLP-wise because I think him being gay is both reliably sourced and also discussed enough by reliable sources to be somewhat relevant to his public life (see e.g. the line in the Buzzfeed piece I quoted, here's another from a quick google search: They want to like him because he’s gay and a person of color. But he’s right of center and it drives them nuts.[6]). Seems to satisfy BLPCAT and I'm also not sure we'd have any extra reason to believe that we'd harm someone describing them as an LGBT writer as opposed to describing them as LGBT and also a writer – to me those really do just mean the same thing and I don't think we'd have to worry about people feeling pigeonholed. That's, of course, separate to other overcategorization concerns. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
So we can combine sources that describe Ngo as gay/LGBT and ones that describe him as a writer, even though none call him a "gay writer", but labeling Anne Coulter as a "conspiracy theorist" requires sources that use those exact words? –dlthewave 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
It is presumed that the category "gay writers" as presented is for writers who are gay, which is a simple intersection of two objective facts that are supported in isolation (being gay, and being a writer), similar to Category:American actors -- and not a category for writers that focus their writing on gay (LGBT) issues, which would be a characterization and would require an explicit sourced. "Conspiracy theorist" is a complete characterization - given that there are many potential levels of what one could be a conspiracy theorist - and thus why we need far more explicit sourcing to avoid OR/BLP issues from editors.
That said, I would tend to agree in what Nil Einne states is that "gay writers" is not necessarily a natural intersectional category, in contrast to "American actors", in that yes, there are writers that likely do not promote their sexuality on purpose, but may have let slip about that sexuality elsewhere, enough that we can document. That may make them in an LGBT category and may place them in "writers" but not necessarily call themselves "gay writers". It would likely be better to have the other type of category that I suggested "writers that focus on LGBT issues" which I would assume would include gay writers that have no problem with that labeling. If readers really want to know writers who are gay, they can use category intersection tools. These sexuality/gender identity intersectional categories probably need a large rethink at a top level for this reason. --Masem (t) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Some of these race/gender/sexuality intersections are so narrowly specific I really question the worth they provide to the encyclopedia. What is actually the point in having e.g. Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent or Category:LGBT businesspeople from France? Busy work for people with editcountitis? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I generally stay away from hyper-specific categories when I’m editing but I will admit that when I’m browsing they can be interesting categories to explore and if we’re being honest >90% of users never even use the categories feature at all. I don’t see a ton of worth but I see a lot more worth than I see harm (I basically see no harm to the encyclopedia from these). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
This is getting more into how we use cats rather than the BLP side, but: In a perfect world, MediaWiki would have a simple way to do category intersection searches, such that we would only categorize on "one" factor (like being a writer, being gay, etc.), and the only time we'd create an intersectional category is where there is clear evidence that reliable sources have called out this category (a concept of notability applied to categories). For example, it should be clear that there's strong interest in the intersectional category "Female politicians" or "Gay/LGBT politicians" but nearly no interest in "Male politicians" or "Heterosexual politicians", so in this perfect system with intersection searching, we may have a "female politicians" category but not the opposite "Male politicians" category though that could be obtained by intersection searching. To contrast still within this perfect world solution, we would like have both "Female actors" and "Male actors" as categories as that is a natural intersection in sourcing.
But we only have hodge-podge category intersection searching right now, and thus we end up with lots of these intersectional categories that may be interesting to browse (as Horse Eye's Back suggests) but at the end of the day may not reflect natural categorization aspects. To again turn to "Female politicians", we know that's of interest but because of how we set up categorization, it nearly requires "Male politicians" (and potentially "Non-binary politicians" as well). If we start having "gay writers", that would suggest we need a category for "straight writers" as well as "gay/straight <other professions>" which is perhaps too much intersection category work. Hence why I think we might want to rethink these intersectional categories for both these reasons as well as the suggested BLP reasons (that is: just being gay and just being a writer doesn't necessarily make said person, in that person's view, a "gay writer"). --Masem (t) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That sort of technical solution would be a dream! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
@Masem and Horse Eye's Back: Regarding category intersections, is PetScan something you're looking for? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
That's the type of tool that I mentioned that existed to help search category intersections, but ideally it should be something that is directly within the Mediawiki software. --Masem (t) 22:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Brad TorgersenEdit

Brad R. Torgersen page has been subject to a slow-motion editing war concerning whether Mr. Torgersen's detailed military service and decorations are notable for the Wikipedia page of a science fiction author. References provided have been the subject's own web page and a copy of the subject's service record which was uploaded to Wikimedia by the subject. The anonymous editors were invited to provide verifiable sources to support the notability of this information for this Wikipedia page. An admin locked the page and requested the topic be hashed out on the Talk page before editing the page further. The lock has expired, and the edit war has resumed without following the admin's instructions and with no references provided to establish notability. Admin assistance requested. CiaraCat (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed and warned. May need extra eyes on these. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I have restored a single sentence on this topic sourced to Wired. All seems peaceful now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ken PaxtonEdit

Ken Paxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Removed false and defamatory material in violation of Wikipedia policies. Removed entire introductory section making false, partisan claims about alleged acts of "insurrection." This false and defamatory material violates Wikipedia NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons policies.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed false and defamatory partisan claims related to alleged acts of "bribery." This false and defamatory material violates Wikipedia NPOV and Biographies of Living Persons policies.

Preserved mention in introduction of 2015 indictment related to alleged securities fraud charges. This is the only actual case of alleged criminal charges filed. All unsubstantiated, false, and defamatory claims against Paxton involving hearsay and speculation violate Wikipedia policy.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Another user is continuously violating Living Persons policy by reverting article to include false and defamatory hearsay material, aside from any actual alleged criminal charges, which was preserved in the one case such charges exist. Please lock article to avoid edit war and inclusion of this false and defamatory material.

172.56.42.108 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Whine whine whine. It all comes with perfectly good sources, and since Wikipedia is a reality-based effort we're not going to delete material that you think is "defamatory" even though true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
WP is also a CIVIL place. We should focus on the quality of specific arguments and help new editors understand how to address their concerns. Often IP editors are inexperienced editors who are correctly identifying a problem but don't understand the Wiki-legalese needed to help fix it. Springee (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The contested material does have issues with IMPARTIAL. It is written with a conspiratorial tone and a way that makes the view of the editors very clear. There are two bits of contested material. The first is the accusations against Paxton. This is a relatively long article yet ~1/3 of the lead is about charges filed in 2015 that as of 2021 haven't resulted in any conviction. That does suggest that the charges might have been politically motivated. Absent a conviction having them in the lead vs all the other things he has done is questionable. The Texas election lawsuit sentence almost certainly should be part of the lead but again IMPARTIAL needs to apply. It's impossible to read that sentence and not understand that the editors who wrote it are adding a POV vs simply stating the facts. I would say the IP editor is correct to remove the accusation material but wrong to remove the lawsuit material. The real issue here is the lead is inadequate and should be fixed. Springee (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the time frame means much since it's an incitement and ongoing case rather than simply accusation which didn't amount to anything. The lengthy time frame seems to reflect more on the US legal system and complicated way such white collar cases tend to be handled, and perhaps also the ability of rich defendants to challenge everything, than any indication of a "political motivation". However it is true that absent a conviction we have to be careful not to give undue weight. But at the same time, having an attorney general to be under indictment while in office is definitely something that is fairly unusual and so not surprisingly has received attention and concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Nil Einne that the case's length is a feature of the legal system and not evidence of politically-motivated allegations. I would support shortening the section on the case, which could be done by cutting down on the blow-by-blow narration of the procedural motions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
The case certainly needs to be part of the article but condensing away the play by play sounds like a good idea. Given the very short length of the lead I don't think this should be, effectively, 1/3rd of the total lead and one of two paragraphs covering what might be seen as the optional/variable info in the lead. I typically assume the first paragraph is the boiler plate (who, what, when etc). The next two paragraphs are typically those that, when done correctly, summarize the rest of the article. The best solution is probably to rewrite the lead so it is a better summary of the complete article. These events may well be part of a more holistic summary of the topic and that would likely address the concerns here. I say that but I wouldn't want to be the person to take on the task. Springee (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Paxton is the type of article that we really really should keeping RECENTISM in mind and waiting on the ten-year view to decide whether any of these actions that are currently under legal evaluation are lede-worthy. We can absolutely document them in the body, but given the overall length of the body, the focus on these suspected actions, yet to be proven by a court of law, and not on what he actually has shown to have done, is the type of problematic editing that we tend to have on BLPs that are the common target of negative press journalism. We can't hide negative coverage, but we have to be aware that we are meant to right neutrally, impartially, and dispassionate about the topic, and we should give little care that the press wants to attack his character (no matter how much any of us as editors also feel that way). That can be really hard particularly in the areas Paxton's been involved with, but it needs to be done. --Masem (t) 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Legal Issues section looks fine to me, it's a factual description of the allegations and Paxton's responses along with significant events in the trials, however I agree that it probably doesn't need to be in the current short-form lead. I don't see anything in that section that appears biased or indicates the views of the editors who wrote it. I do take issue with editors characterizing the allegations as "false" (this is just as much of a BLP violation as labeling them as "true" in wiki voice), and the IP's effort to scrub negative content is clearly politically motivated. –dlthewave 16:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Zhang ZhehanEdit

Hello,

The Chinese version of actor Zhang Zhehan’s wikipage has high volume of edits each day, including many libelous content.

Section Controversy are full of false rumours with misleading descriptions. Some users make updates to set the record straight, but it gets updated again with libelous descriptions a minute later by other users.

Link: https://zh.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/張哲瀚 zhang zhehan

Zoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Need Freedom of Speech to Speak the Truth (talkcontribs)

You will need to deal with this on the Chinese Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia operates independently and we have no control over what goes on there, and it would be inappropriate to decide on the English Wikipedia what should happen there anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Cynthia_M._ChestnutEdit

"She has since faced accusations of violent outbursts and abuse of office from former interns and colleagues during her tenure."

This last sentence of the bio is unsourced & should either be authoritatively sourced or removed.

PS: this is the first time I've ever commented on an Wiki article & I've no idea how to edit; will leave that to others w more experience : )

The vandalism has been removed. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Michael K. WilliamsEdit

Michael K. Williams was a famous television/film actor who died on September 6. According to the sources listed below, drug paraphernalia was discovered at his apartment and his death is being investigated as an overdose. BLP applies to recently deceased persons.

  • The New York Times: Mr. Williams was found about 2 p.m., according to the New York City Police Department. The death is being investigated as a possible drug overdose, the police said, and the city’s medical examiner was to determine the cause.
  • CNN: Investigators found drug paraphernalia near his body, the official said. The investigation is ongoing, according to another law enforcement source who spoke to CNN.
  • ABC New York: Drug paraphernalia was found at the scene, authorities say. The NYPD says his death was being investigated as a possible drug overdose, but the medical examiner will determine the official cause.
  • The LA Times: Williams, 54, was found dead in his Brooklyn apartment Monday, a New York Police spokesman told The Times. Williams’ death was being investigated as a possible drug overdose, according to the Associated Press, citing police.

Users have attempted to add this information into the article. An administrator, Muboshgu, (as well as others, in fairness) have repeatedly reverted these additions, as well as revision-deleting prior entries of the page containing this information, citing BPD/WP:BLP. The claim here is apparently that this is a violation of BPD/BLP, BPD/BLP is a "strict" policy and that we need to wait for an autopsy or official report (which may never be released), rather than rely on what reliable sources have already reported.

BLP does not prohibit including negative information -- such as drug use or overdoses -- if reported in reliable sources. See Kate Quigley, Keith McCants. This is also giving other users the impression that we can't even discuss the information. It'd be helpful to set the record straight here on whether this is permitted as well as appropriate to include. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Based on the quotes above, it seems an excellent idea to stop at "is dead", until media reports "the medical examiner determined that..." "May have been drugs" (or whatever) is not "written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I would focus on the sources, not the quotes. You just lifted perhaps the most quoted part of BLP. Too often editors skip past the exceptions and qualifiers, such as WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states:
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it..
Exclusion is not the norm in circumstances like this. It is very unlikely we'll ever have access to "medical examiners reports." What we do have, are reliable sources reporting on aspects of the death. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is suggesting we use "medical examiners reports". Despite the quotation marks, AFAICT, you're the first person to use the phrase. I'd argue in the short term that violates WP:BLPPRIMARY anyway. What is being suggested is we wait until the medical examiner has publicised their conclusion of the cause of death and this has been reported in reliable secondary sources. It seems to be the norm in the US that such conclusions are made public in high profile cases like this. Sometimes the whole report is made available, sometimes just a summary. It doesn't matter since we aren't analysing the report, we're just summarising what reliable secondary sources have said about the medical examiner's conclusions. Personally, I'm not sure if it's necessary to wait as I feel even if the media are wrong, it's likely there will be some mention of their earlier incorrect speculation in a complete article, but I also see no reason to care much about something which will likely be resolved in a few weeks. Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
publicised their conclusion of the cause of death and this has been reported in reliable secondary sources This is what I was referring to. I was certainly not referring to rushing to the coroner's office and uploading documents myself (though I think that kind of dedication could be channeled to hopefully something positive!).
I think it's a problem if Wikipedia is lagging too far behind what is factual, widespread, and known. National newspapers have reported on this matter. We're not taking an unreasonable risk of being incorrect (that's why we rely on reliable sources). There are no genuine "privacy" concerns here. And there is no indication that "further development" will ever occur. What more is there to say? This person was a famous and successful actor; they have a documented history of substance abuse struggles; they died; investigators are treating it as a drug overdose based on available evidence.
Our approach in all such situations cannot be "let's move slow as molasses just out of excessive caution." Caution for what? Would we wait for the verdict in a jury trial before reporting on developments in a case? Would we say "Let's wait for the response's defense?" Never. It is also simply not what we do. The notion that we can't include this information goes against typical practice on these pages, as I noted earlier, which should also be a concern. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 14:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Adding a line stating that "His death is being investigated as a possible drug overdose" doesn't seem at all unreasonable, given the multiple high-quality RS saying that. Also, in terms of the subject's privacy, his struggles with addiction have received significant RS coverage, and Williams spoke about them himself. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My gut (which is not particularly reliable) says that this is more of a WP:NOTNEWS situation, and we should wait for some sort of finality on the issue. In ten years, what will matter will be the conclusion reached and not whether the investigation occurred. As ever, if consensus is against me, I understand. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Including widely reported and well referenced facts in articles is the basis for Wikipedia to exist. Without including widely reported facts, what is the value of Wikipedia?1peterk (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It is clear there are two camps here: The "include the well referenced facts" camp and the "keep the facts private, even if widely reported" camp. e.g. The "don't expect Wikipedia to have the story" camp. Is there any method to reach consensus? In my experience, the deletionists always win, though the talk pages do tend to include what the articles might or might not. As a user, this means always reading the talk page to see what has been deleted. As I write, I am unsure how thoroughly the "delete everything" people can go, if they have a capability to erase article and talk history.1peterk (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
As an arch deletionist, I will not rest until Wikipedia consists solely of a single disambiguation page with nothing but broken links. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
To the arch deletionists, what represents this vaunted "finality" you mention? Clearly, the many media outlets that have published the investigation facts are not "final" enough for your camp.1peterk (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Again, Wikipedia is not the news, and as such, generally I would try to avoid things that are likely to be superseded in short order. Either this will be substantiated or a different cause of death will be announced--which will then be appropriate to include. In the smaller (but possible) chance that there is no further information, then it may be appropriate to include that the investigation happened, if it has become clear that there will be no other resolution. As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ and if the weight is consensus is against me, that's okay. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTNEWS needs to be re-named, because it is so frequently mis-cited. WP:NOTNEWS stands for the proposition that Wikipedia should not present original or routine (weather, traffic) reporting. That is not what is being proposed here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
There are multiple parts to NOTNEWS, and while one part deals with not including routine reporting, the second part involves "enduring coverage" and avoiding news-style immediate updates that don't necessarily contribute to the enduring coverage of a topic. Should Williams be found to have died from OD, then that can be added, but currently it is speculation by investigators; for newspapers that worry about the day to day, they have no issue with this, but that type of speculation doesn't meet enduring coverage for us, particularly when coupled with BLP (and application to recently deceased). --Masem (t) 13:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, if by your lights WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply (which is a reasonable stance), I would still say my position is backed up by WP:10YT. To my mind, there's simply no reason to rush this one. Let thing evolve a bit. As ever, quite possible I am wrong. Cheers and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully, bringing an issue to BLPN for discussion is the opposite of a "rush." If by "rush" you mean we should wait a year before adding any information, then Wikipedia would only have about 100 articles, 20 of which would be stubs, if it had followed that molasses-like pace from the beginning.
There's pretty much no question here that the circumstances of his death will be relevant in ten years (which in of itself is a very rough guideline).
Note that this is a private individual, and the notion that we'll ever get some sort of "closure" in the form of an autopsy or toxicology report is very unlikely unless it is leaked to the press (in which case I can imagine the same rather misguided arguments about "privacy" being made). I think peopleWikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree we're not likely to see a toxicology report, but I think it's likely we may see reports in reliable sources attributing a cause of death, rather than an investigation thereof. But I don't think we're likely to agree here, so all the best. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
That's fine. I think that the benefit of this exchange (and maybe we'll both agree on this) is that reasonable people can disagree on whether inclusion is appropriate. It is not automatically and dogmatically a "BLP violation" to include or discuss this content, as was being enforced by the prior admin. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The admin business is a bit above my pay grade, but I will wholeheartedly agree that reasonable minds can differ on this one entirely in good faith. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Anyone is allowed to question the actions of an admin. WP:ADMINACCT. Especially when they are misapplying rules at a page under threat of sanction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
This is not the place to discuss administrative actions, try the administrator directly and if you feel your concerns aren't sufficiently answered take it to one of the ANs or arbcom depending on what exactly you feel needs to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: Fair enough, though I think it would be better get an answer on the BLP issue first. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Linda GrayEdit

It is indicated that Linda Gary (who appeared on Dallas) passed in 1995 yet there are Youtube interviews with her in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.16.224 (talkcontribs)

Max RamEdit

@Wikiauthorone: has, after a number of disruptive edits to the Max Ram article, now claimed to be the subject, and asked to remove some innocuous information (the dates he spent at a club), which is properly referenced. I see no reason to do so - what are other's thoughts? GiantSnowman 19:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the grounds to remove it either, unless there's some issue where he left the first club before 2020, and was unsigned for some period? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Ray DonaldsonEdit

Ray Donaldson Ray's Birth name is not Raymond. Ray is not a nickname. Ray is his given name. It was corrected once but has somehow been changed back. There is a Raymond Donaldson also from Rome, Georgia. RAY Canute Donaldson is not that person.

Do any sources say his full name is Raymond? If not then it should be changed back. Looking at the edit history it doesn't look like a recent change. Springee (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Full name was added in July 2020. Here's a ref for it: Sporting News (1990). Football Register, 1990. Sporting News Publishing Company. p. 78. ISBN 978-0-89204-364-4. Retrieved September 8, 2021. Schazjmd (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Absent other information I would accept that. However, I've known several people who's given name was the truncated version of a more formal name. It would be nice to have a verification just in case. Springee (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Jesse Dunford WoodEdit

I've never come across this before. None of the sources in the articles support any of the material. Indeed, none of them even mentions the subject. Yet, it's not a hoax, and much of the material may be accurate. I tried to find a template that fits this situation, but failed. I suppose the appropriate course of action is to rewrite and resource the article, but I have no interest in doing that.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Try Template:Autobiography, which is exactly what this reads like. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
(EC) It seems to me if your summary is accurate it meets Wikipedia:BLPPROD. There may be sources but if none of them mention the subject by definition they cannot support any statement made about them. Of course this could easily be challenged by someone adding one source e.g. [7] which does mention the subject and supports some statement that is either added or exists in the article so it may not be a real solution. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
In any case, I updated one of the URLs with an archive one and so arguably BLPPROD no longer applies as it sort of supports the statement. (It doesn't give the 'Wood' and also the way it verifies he was a participant is in a very roundabout fashion.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the article was created by an SPA with a similar name back in 2008, and was nominated for deletion shortly thereafter by The Anome, but survived because someone was able to find a restaurant review that says nothing of what is mentioned in the article. I think standards were a lot lower back then. (Me, I want to see enough material out there to construct a decent article.) That said, there are telltale signs of an article written by the subject themselves, (ie; spatial perspectives, the particular use of adverbs and prepositions, stating things only the subject themselves could possibly know or experience, and such, to name a few) but unless there are some real sources to confer notability, I think at the very least another shot at AFD would be appropriate. Maybe it would qualify for Prod, but I've never dug too deeply. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Brian WongEdit

Brian Wong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I’m concerned about controversial topic coverage of the alleged sexual assault by Brian Wong and the undue weight lent to the topic. My second concern is that the topic may violate WP:BLP policy based on WP:BLPCRIME and WP:SUSPECT which are sub sections under WP:BLP. Therefore, I request for assistance of uninvolved editors or an admin.

First, the same topic appears three times – in the Lead section, Kliip and Criminal Charges. For instance, the text volume on sexual assaul in the Lead section is bigger than everything else.

Second, and this one is quite alarming. ‘’’Violation of WP:BLP. Here it is literally: ‘’’

People accused of crime

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

Based on this source: https://www.adexchanger.com/mobile/kiip-brings-on-new-chief-in-wake-of-sexual-assault-charges-against-former-ceo-brian-wong/

It clearly states that this is an indictment by Grand Jury, which is a letter, where the jury admits the evidence on person might be enough to push criminal charges. Indictment is not criminal charges. Criminal charges are initiated by the prosecutor and there is no record I found about it. Here is more information about it:

  • United States Department of Justice:

https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging

After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information they gather from talking with the individuals involved, the prosecutor decides whether to present the case to the grand jury. When a person is indicted, they are given formal notice that it is believed that they committed a crime. The indictment contains the basic information that informs the person of the charges against them. For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members.

And here is more from the reliable source:

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/what-happens-after-an-indictment-in-a-criminal-case/

After a grand jury indictment, a defendant has the opportunity to enter a plea. A guilty plea could lead to a quick sentencing hearing or the imposition of a pre-arranged plea bargain with prosecutors. If a defendant pleads not guilty, the case will move forward to trial. It is still possible, though, to arrange a plea bargain after a guilty plea, and all the way until a verdict is reached at trial. It is important to note that an indictment is not a statement of guilt -- it is only a determination that enough evidence exists to move forward with charges. If a defendant has yet to be arrested, he or she could be following the indictment. For defendants already in jail after their arrest and unable to bail themselves out, they could remain there after an indictment to await trial. Or a judge may set the conditions of their pre-trial release.

From Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#California

‘’’My point is: ‘’’

1) Grand Jury is not a Court 2) Brian Wong is hardly a public figure according to the US definition 3) There is a source that confirms he was indicted by the Grand Jury but there are no sources (to the best of my knowledge) that Brian Wong was convicted by any court. And we must accentuate that only the conviction by the Court makes a person guilty. But the texts in the Lead sections uses wrong definitions based on the fact that some editors probably do not know the difference between the Court trial and Grand Jury indictment.

Third, I’d like to detail on the sources used and information retrieved:

Summary section:

  • As of March 2019, the criminal charges were pending and no trial had yet been held.
There is no record whatsoever that any criminal charges are pending at all, so it is not clear where does this sentence come from – from a hidden source or someone’s imaginative mind.
  • Within six months of Wong's dismissal as its CEO, Kiip went bankrupt and was shut down by its creditors

It is also not clear whether the editor retrieved the fact or did original research by leaving this sentence. The source is primary and I wasn’t able to find that information based only on one court record:

https://norcalrecord.com/stories/518213187-case-activity-for-the-meet-group-inc-vs-kiip-inc-on-oct-31 My concern: Wikipedia:PRIMARY and Wikipedia:NOR The same source is used for the Kiip section, where the information simply duplicates the info in the Lead section with no additional details.

  • Criminal charges section

Shouldn’t it be renamed “Indictment”? Or, probably based on the WP:BLP, to be reduced to a minimum? I shared my arguments and once again I’m asking uninvolved editors or an admin to assist with the page review. Idunnox3 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Wong qualifies as a public figure and believe that discussion of the indictment should only be limited to its impact on his career/company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert SwopeEdit

After being part of your search engine since before you existed... and being part of the HUMAN people who created the ability for you to do this.... WHY I AM NOT LISTED in YOUR search engine ? I was, non stop, for over 20 years, across 168 countries and thousands of business projects.... now, NOTHING. WHY! And as a Publicly Elected Councilmember in one of the top tier cities in the USA.. I DEMAND TO KNOW WHY I HAVE BEEN "CANCELLED". Please explain in writing. I do have Prints of my life over the years.... that have now gone away.... Shall I share with everyone ? I await your decisions . Robert Swope Councilman Metro Nashville Owner Sunrise Entertainment Inc.

  • Well, if you are indeed Robert Swope, the first two sources I found for you are this and this, so you may want to consider whether (if you are indeed Wikipedia-notable) having an article is even good idea... Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Dan Connolly (computer scientist)Edit

I'm working at Agoric now, no longer at KUMC.

I noted this on the talk page in March. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dan_Connolly_(computer_scientist)#2021_Career_Update

The article isn't incorrect currently, but I hope requesting an update here is useful in keeping wikipedia up-to-date.

DanConnolly (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Updated, although Wikipedia isn't really meant to be a CV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer)Edit

Removed false, partisan, defamatory claims, "sourced" by Media Matters, an openly leftist organization known for their "War on Fox News," and USA Today, an openly leftist publication which broke their non-endorsement policy to oppose Trump and endorse Clinton in 2016.

These are not unbiased sources, and publishing such false and defamatory claims on Shaffer's Wikipedia article violates both NPOV and BLP. False and defamatory claims were repeatedly removed and then reinserted by another user. Report filed to avoid edit war and prevent further violation of Wikipedia policy.

67.42.97.177 (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

There's a second part of that statement that uses a USA Today article which while reliable makes no mention of Shaffer so it is inappropriate to be using that as a source or including that statement with that source. Whether there are other sources that specifically identify Shaffer's claim of election fraud and that that fraud has been proven false in the same source, I dunno, but its not appropriate to do what had been done there.
As for the Media Matters, that's a reliable source, but its also only one source. If that's the only source that makes that statement, then what's being included absolutely needs to be made outside of Wikivoice with attribution to MM. If there are more sources, they should be included as well. --Masem (t) 00:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
And I just did a quick search on both "Anthony Shaffer" and "Tony Shaffer" and various forms of "misinformation" and "election fraud" and am not getting a heck of a lot of hits from reliable sources here. (including several op-eds from Shaffer himself). Not that there's enough to not include the Media Matters piece as well as Right Wing Watch, but too little that this definitely needs to be presented as opinion and not fact in Wikivoice. Perhaps even this CRJ article [8] but that really doesn't call him directly out for misinformation though strongly implied. --Masem (t) 00:32, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking at an old version of the page, it looks like someone saw a video in which Shaffer shares some view on "election anomalies" and added that as a source, along with USA Today. I think whoever removed the video since then made the right call, and I've gone ahead and removed the USA Today source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and removed the misinformation assertion cited to Media Matters since there is no consensus on its reliability at WP:RSP and WP:PUBLICFIGURE demands multiple RS for that type of assertion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Wilson-FoleyEdit

I'm not a content creator so I'm looking for some help with this BLP nightmare. I'd send it to AFD but there is some content here about her political career (not her golf handicap) that makes me think she is notable. Is it repairable? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 02:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

https://g.co/kgs/xrT8CQEdit

Linda Ann Gray was born 12 September 1940 in Santa Monica California.

The above link is INCORRECT as Linda was not born in July and did not die in March 1995. She is still very much alive and celebrated her 81st birthday yesterday.


PLEASE TAKE DOWN THIS INFLAMMATORY ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrelandCalling1976 (talkcontribs)

Again, Linda Gray (alive) and Linda Gary (died in 1995). The thing you are highlighting is Google Knowledge Graph, which does seem to be incorrect, but we have no control over that. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
We have zero control over Google's abuse of its own platform. Yell at Google. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Jéské Couriano 06:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
IrelandCalling1976, that is Google, not WP. They get it wrong sometimes, as does WP. At the bottom right corner of the knowledge graph is a link that says "report." Try using it, perhaps it'll work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Nina DobrevEdit

Started a discussion on Talk:Nina Dobrev about a misinterpretation of MOS:ETHNICITY. Some context: Dobrev's Bulgarian citizenship has apparently been disputed by editors for years; I included it in the article with a source where she confirms it herself. MOS:ETHNICITY states that the lead should include the citizenship the person had when they became notable, hence she should be refered to as a Bulgarian-Canadian (a case similar to those of Lupita Nyong'o, Anna Paquin, Mischa Barton, Christiane Amanpour, to name a few). Needless to say, this has been completely disregarded and I've been accused of being a sockpuppet. Some obvious gatekeeping has been going on with this article for years. Coconutyou3 (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Roscoe DashEdit

Hi I'm tour Dj, DJ Fly Guy referenced in wiki with a former artist/client of mine. I made an edit to source my name to the page in creating my own page and the edits are being denied but I'm mentioned in his wiki. Can we add the edits successfully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmDJFlyGuy (talkcontribs)

Hello IAmDJFlyGuy. Just because you're mentioned in another article, doesn't mean that you meet the notability requirements for having an article. To further understand those requirements, please see WP:MUSICBIO. In addition, you shouldn't be creating an article about yourself, as you have a conflict of interest. See WP:YOURSELF for further detail on this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Kevin M. KruseEdit

Could use some opinions on this page; a user has added a “false claims” section that gives me qualms. Happy to be wrong, if that’s the community decision. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say you were clearly correct in your initial appraisal that this section represents obvious WP:SYNTH and therefore a WP:BLP violation. This unfortunately appears to be a pattern of behavior that the new user in question is determined to apply across as broad an array of articles as possible (just a few of many possible diffs: [9], [10], [11]). Generalrelative (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this. I removed the material again. While it may be that the person was wrong, and that one can point to reliable sources to show that they were wrong, I fully agree that it is OR to point out that the person was wrong in Wikivoice; we'd need other sources to say that was an error or an issue. Otherwise it looks like we in wikivoice are purposely fingerpointing. --Masem (t) 06:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Frédéric Longuepée WikipediaEdit

Longuepée devrait être modifié en Longuépée dans toute la page. Merci beaucoup.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb04:b35:7d00:dcf6:31ae:d4c0:f33e (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Il a été corrigé. Merci d'avoir porté cela à notre attention. DeCausa (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Andriy PortnovEdit

An article about Ukrainian lawyer and politician, currently an opposition activist. 75% of the article are criminal cases against him, most of which are appear to be frivolous, and the whole collections appear to be of WP:TRIVIA/WP:UNDUE quality. Therefore it appears to be an attack page. I removed some most egregious accusations, e.g., him being allegedly a pro-Russian, and pieces from dirt-digging sources. As for the rest, I's like a hand of a person well-versed in WP:BLP.

I run into dhis article while I was edtin my Putinversteher article. I added a missing author name to a footnote and decided to check author's credentials. The article cited was thoroughly anti-Russian, and I was quite surprized that in the lede of his wp-bio Portnov was described as "pro-Russian". I know that in modern Ukraine all opposition to the current government is slammed with the tag "pro-Russian". Therefore I'd like for an independent editorr to also keep an eyee for bias. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Erin GavinEdit

Several IPs as well as newly registered editor User:Miss eringavin have removed a sourced approximate year of birth (using the {{birth based on age as of date}} template) multiple times from the article; the source is Daily_Record_(Scotland), which interviewed the subject and mentioned the year of her birth at the time of the interview. User:Miss eringavin claims to be the subject and has removed the year of birth several times despite warnings, claiming that it's "incorrect." I haven't been able to find any policies saying whether or not it's permissible for subjects of articles to censor biographical information published in what appears to be a reasonable secondary source; I don't think anything in WP:BLPPRIVACY applies here; there are no conflicting sources. There's also the WP:COI issue, of course. My inclination it to restore the year of birth, as I can think of no policy reasons why the subject should be able to arbitrarily suppress it. I'd like to get a second (or third) opinion before taking further action in the interest of erring on the side of caution. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Note: It appears that the registered editor has attempted to reply to this discussion at User_talk:Miss_eringavin. — LauritzT (talk) 07:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I am the user who made the original edition regard Erin Gavin's age and concur with the above comments. There have been repeated attempts by other users, including one claiming to be Erin Gavin, to conceal this person's age. A Daily Record interview with Ms Gavin from February 07 2004 states her age to be 25. An Evening Times interview with Erin Gavin on 30 September 2009 gives her age as 29. 15 January 2015 interview with the Daily Record newspaper states her age to be 34. Interview with The Scottish Sun on 16 August 2021 claims her age to be 35.

Original edit does not claim that Erin Gavin was 34 in the January 2015 Daily Record interview, simply that this is the age stated in the interview. Given the inconsistent ages reported in the press over the years for this person, it is impossible to give an exact age.

Furthermore, Erin Gavin is stated in the "Early Life" section of the entry to have attended "The Royal Academy". This links to a page for The Royal Scottish Academy, which is a national gallery for contemporary art. Given its inclusion in the "Early Life" section of the Wikipedia entry, this seems to imply Ms Gavin attended "The Royal Academy" for schooling. It is unclear to me how someone could have attended a national arts gallery for schooling. User talk: Gallus Alice 07:32, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


Quick search reveals several Daily Record interviews with Erin Gavin over the years, going back to 2001. An interview on 19 September 2003 with Erin Gavin about her career as a television extra records her as being 24 years old. Another interview with the Daily Record (July 19 2004) about her acting career states Gavin is 25 years old. These articles are available through The Free Library rather than the original Daily Record website. Is The Free Library considered a sufficiently reliable source for Wikipedia? User: Gallus Alice 16:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Zakaria ZubeidiEdit

At Zakaria Zubeidi attention has clustered round the article after his recent gaol break and recapture. In that article, which had been fairly thoroughly worked, there was no mention of his putative connection with the 2002 Beit She'an attack. The latter article also for 10 years never had any mention of Zubeidi's involvement, until yesterday.

During the brief gaolbreak, several Israeli newspapers mentioned en passant that Zubeidi was the mastermind or the hand behind the Beit She'an terrorist assault in 2002. The 'evidence' against him on this charge for the moment appears to be non-existent except for extremely brief newspaper assertions, i.e. here, and here.

Now (1) Zubeidi was involved, he admits himself, in killings of this type. There is no doubt regarding this. But in the detailed interviews where this activity was mentioned, on his page, all dating to the 2000s after the Beit She'an incident, no mention is made of his involvement in that attack. Further, in a 2006 interview, the (hostile) interviewer stated that despite repeated inquiries with Israel's secret police, she was given no evidence regarding his involvement in several incidents:-

When I try to confirm with Israeli authorities the charges Zubeidi is wanted on, I am stonewalled. I am instructed to trawl through government records of 135 suicide and other bombing and shooting attacks carried out in Israel since September 2000 to see how many the al-Aqsa brigades have claimed responsibility for. Total: 20. . .Exactly what he has and has not been involved in should be a matter for the courts to decide. According to Israeli sources, at least six children have been killed and many more injured in suicide attacks for which al-Aqsa have claimed responsibility. Yet it will almost definitely never come to a court appearance. Christine Toomey, Discussing the politics of murder: Christine Toomey was invited to lunch with one of Israel's most wanted and implacable enemies, Zakaria Zubeidi, whose disciples are trained in the cause of martyrdom. The Sunday Times. 2006-06-11.

In short, Toomey implies that for the Shin Bet, Zubeidi is guilty by association, as one of several regional leaders of the Al Aqsa Brigades. Whatever they did, he is responsible for being a member of a terrorist group. On a BLP article, guilt for a specific incident among hundreds cannot be asserted as ascertained. Responsibility is always individual and judicially determined.

(2) He was put on trial in 2019, on several charges, perhaps one of which might relate to the 2002 incident (can't find out so far). That trial is ongoing, no court judgement regarding his complicity has been yet handed down, since 2002. All contemporary newspaper reports re the 2002 incident assign responsibility for that attack to two men from a village 13 kilometres north of Zubeidi's hometown, and never mention him.

(3) It is a reasonable inference, in lieu of direct evidence, that the 2021 newspaper reports assigning to him blame for 'masterminding' the Beit She'an attack draw on accusations made by the prosecution in 2019, over which no verdict of guilt or innocence has yet been delivered.

My understanding is that, in a BLP article, you need strong evidence to assign responsibility for murder to a person, not newspaper claims, nor circulating memes that appear to have no judicial basis, or accusations by the prosecution. I.e. I would expect such a statement to be phrased not in wiki's neutral voice, but as a claim. This, editoris are refusing to do. Neutral third party input is requested.Nishidani (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME seems pretty clear, just follow that. Zerotalk 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with that, which reads:'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.'
The crux here is that a small consortium of editors insists on saying that since 2 or 3 newspaper sources state his culpability as a fact, we report that as a fact, regardless of the fact that there is no record I can find which convicted him of it. Worse, a reporter stated that official Israeli sources refused to clarify what charges were pending against him since 2002. The problem is not following wiki's strict rules, but in being reverted if one does apply them, as here. Hence this request.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
There are reliable sources that explicitly say he was serving a jail sentence for that specific mass murder: eg.: https://www.jta.org/2021/09/09/israel/6-palestinian-terrorists-use-crawl-space-to-escape-maximum-security-israeli-prison - "He has been in and out of Israeli prisons for most of his life, including a sentence for his supervision of a terrorist attack in 2002 in the city of Beit Shean that killed six." Other sources explicitly say he was behind the attack, masterminded it, planned it, or supervised it. Inf-in MD (talk)
We must go by reliable sources and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency generally qualifies. The problem with the article you cite,

Cnaan Liphshiz, 6 Palestinian terrorists use crawl space to escape maximum-security Israeli prison,' Jewish Telegraphic Agency 9 September 9, 2021

Is that the author happens to be notoriously slipshod (long memories of his many articles, all extremely POV). In this article for example he states:-

Zubeidi, 45, was arrested in 2019 for shooting at Israelis in the West Bank. He has been in and out of Israeli prisons for most of his life, including a sentence for his supervision of a terrorist attack in 2002 in the city of Beit Shean that killed six.

Zubeidi has been since 2002 imprisoned by Israel for close to 2 years, 2019-2021 on charges unrelated to Beit She'an (source=Judah Ari Gross, Former terror leader charged with carrying out fresh shooting attacks Times of Israel 20 May 2019). Before that date (2002), he had spent 6 months in an Israeli jail for throwing stones aged 13,4 and a half years from 15 to 19 for throwing firebombs, and 1 year 3 months for stealing cars, a total of 6 years and 3 months in Israeli jails in his youth, prior to 2002. For the subsequent 20 years he never served time in an Israeli jail, until his arrest for terrorism in 2019. 8 years and 3 months of Israeli imprisonment over 45 years, does not, pace the ever-exaggerating Liphshiz, translate honestly into for most of his life. That makes the following sentence even more suspect, since, in the public record as known so far, there is no evidence he served 'a sentence for his supervision of a terrorist attack in 2002 in the city of Beit Shean' in an Israeli prison'. That is counterfactual since, from the time of the Beit She'an incident in 2002 until 2019 he never did time in any Israeli prison. Such slipshod journalism, which contradicts the known public record, makes that source unreliable. The 2019 indictment refers to events from 2003 (after Beit She'an) down to that date, and not to Beit She'an. I have no problems with stating Zubeidi was either indicted for Beit She'an or served time for that incident in an Israeli prison if we can have a reliable source stating the result of an Israeli court inquiry. So far, multiple google searchs have failed to fish up any Israeli newspaper report that such a judicial result exists. So BLP again demands we remove it, unless we get solid confirmation. What is required is not careless journalism, but Israeli journalism referring specifically to a sentence in an Israeli court. Perhaps he was sentenced in absentia, who knows. But we need proof. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
No, we are not a court of law and do not need proof, we need reliable sources. And as you write- "We must go by reliable sources and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency generally qualifies". Inf-in MD (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
This person is a public figure so there is no problem to include the accusation as the reported by WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Given that we do not have any confirmed conviction on record, but are relying on RSes that say his was behind the 2002 attacks, the best that should be done is to make sure that this is not said as outright factually in wikivoice. Eg right now the lede says and was on Israel's most-wanted list for several years, as he was behind a 2002 terrorist attack that killed 6 people in Beit She'an. but should probably be and was on Israel's most-wanted list for several years, as he is suspected to have organized a 2002 terrorist attack that killed 6 people in Beit She'an. That remains consistent with the RSes but leaves the issue of lack of any confirmed conviction from the pre-2010 period (which should have reported it and should not be hard to find if it actually happened) as open. --Masem (t) 14:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, and this alternate phrasing has already been suggested on the talk page, only to be flat out rejected by the person who started this discussion. Inf-in MD (talk)
Don't distort this discussion. I rejected rephrasing ZZ being a perpetrator (sourced) to being 'suspected' as the mastermind, because the latter is unsourced. This is a valid technical point, not orneriness. Several Israeli newspapers 20 years after the event assert this as a fact, nor a suspicion, and that jars with all we know about his penal convictions and time in jail. Masem is correct that this violates BLP policy. They are also correct that there must be a record of such a suspicion or conviction, if it was ever voiced for that period. I have pursued this relentlessly and cannot find any indication that he spent time in an Israeli jail from post-Beit She'an times until 2019, when the charges did not apparently include mention of that incident. So I also concur with Masem's view that that kind of visible public notification ought to turn up if it exists. I disagree only with the suggestion that we change the assertion this is a fact, to one of suspicion he was behind it. So far no sources have been adduced for this either. One cannot use a source that asserts this as a fact by paraphrasing that it is a suspicion: that would contradict the source, and fall under WP:OR- Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
However, I have suggested the wording "suspected" which is different from saying "charged with" or "convicted", both the latter which I would expect to see legal evidence or affirmation from Israeli enforcing via RSes that these were made. But that multiple RSes saying in their words he was the mastermind behind the 2002 attack, it is fair to consider that a possible contested statement w/o any evidence of a law enforcement statement, but we can properly ascribe the RSes statement as "suspected" without failing BLP. --Masem (t) 16:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Besides a zillion sources saying he was behind it, Zubeidi himself took responsibility for the Beit She'an in a 2005 interview: [12]. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ToI (and Here as well) is more careful than some other sources in how it phrases things. It's clear that most of the past allegations are based on "belief" (dutifully repeated) and the current trial is still ongoing.Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Zillion? Don't be 'zilly', Were that so, editors here wouldn't have taken so much time finding material, which in any case was complicated because, (a) two sources say he was the perpetrator/mastermind (b) one source states that he was convicted and sentenced and did time in an Israeli jail. Neither were credible. However, the source you now bring up is credible. Sarah Leibowitz, Omri Assenheim, King of Jenin. NRG Maariv 11/2/2004) It has Zubeidi assuming responsibility for the Beit She’an killings. There is no trial, no verdict, no prison sentence, as sources cited have asserted. Even in the 2019 indictment, there is no mention of this as a confession. It may be true, it may be a boast to secure further his reputation in Jenin as 'the king of Jenin'. So whatever the truth, all one can say is that in an interview in 2005 with two Israeli journalists he claimed or assumed responsibility. The journalists cited from 2021 take him at his word, one presumes. We can't per BLP: we can only note that he assumed responsibility, since other that this statement there is no legal document to determine whether his statement is correct or not. Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Z::Zillion? Don't be zilly, Were that so, editors here wouldn't have taken so much time finding material, which in any case was complicated because, (a) two sources say he was the perpetrator/mastermind (b) one source states that he was convicted and sentenced and did time in an Israeli jail. Neither were credible. However, the source you now bring up is credible. Sarah Leibowitz, Omri Assenheim, King of Jenin. (Heb)NRG Maariv 11/2/2004) It has Zubeidi assuming responsibility for the Beit She’an killings. There is no trial, no verdict, no prison sentence, as sources cited have asserted. Even in the 2019 indictment, there is no mention of this as a confession. It may be true, it may be a boast to secure further his reputation as 'the king of Jenin' . So whatever the truth, all one can say is that in an interview in 2005 with two Israeli journalists he claimed or assumed responsibility.
Since the parties involved here can be read as pushing a POV, against or for Zubeidi, lastly, I would suggest that Masem or any other independent third party have the final word as to how this be best resolved in BLP terms. Whatever that conclusion turns to be, even against what I think the correct construal of the new source, I'll honour it.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
My reserve here is the same with Naphtali Bennett's remark:' "I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that."One does not know whether this is true, or false (it was recorded, he denied later after being censured etc. That is irrelevant. The proper thing is simply to attribute the statement and leave it at that, without assuming either that it is true or a boast (which I privately tend to think probable, but that is neither here nor there).Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Where do either one of those sources mention the Bet She'an mass murder? And why would it even matter when he has already acknowledged his responsibility, per 11Fox11? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for making my point for me, the articles quite happily point to the prior misdeeds, trials and imprisonment of the others but not Zubeidi (they content themselves with "notorious"). As for the self-incrimination, you have heard of that, I suppose? Maybe he was just bragging for effect, or trying to impress his friends, or just trying to pi** off the Israelis, idk. Absent a conviction, it means nothing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    It doesn't prove he did it of course, from a legal point of view, but it does very strongly suggest it should ne mentioned in the article, as the basis for the suspicion, or with something like "he has bragged about being responsible for the mass murder in Bet She'an". Inf-in MD (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Michelle WuEdit

I was thinking about posting at COIN, but that we get a more neutral article is more important to me than holding the editor's feet to the fire. Until this series of edits, SecretName101 contributed 87.6% of this content, in 413 edits. The article is completely bloated, highly promotional, and, above all, sourced in an outrageous manner to the campaign websites of the candidate. Before that last series of edits, no fewer than 27 of the "references" were to michelleforboston.com, and so every single one of her positions, all points of her platform, seem to have been included--alongside trivia like her fluent Chinese and rusty Frenc (note the edit summary: Wu is not Melania Trump) and tenuous BLP info like this. It would be great if some other editors can either weigh in on the talk page (where I was drawn after seeing some edits by User:Ganesha811), or simply by pruning the ridiculously large article according to acceptable standards. That includes rectifying statements (by another editor) like this here, where regular standards would dictate simply this: if there are no secondary sources, promotional material is NOT a substitute. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Really? All of her policy stances are in there? She has several policy outlines that are 50 pages+. Odd, don't recall putting all of that in there. Honestly, drop the hyperbole. It's offensive to me. SecretName101 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And as several people have pointed out, her own stated/written stances are probably among the best sources for her stances. That's not being "promotional", when carefully framed. SecretName101 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:BLPSELFPUB pretty much covers this: her position as from her website are unduly self-promotional, and we should not be heavily relying on that site for covering them. --Masem (t) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Wow, that article definitely needs some trimming and summarization. Nearly 10,000 words. We should be looking at secondary sources interpreting her policies and summarizing their words, rather than using primary sources. That's a big bite to take though, a lot of work trimming that down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Especially since SecretName keeps reverting. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)