Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:37, 30 August 2024

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.

This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem.

Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Additional notes:

Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases.
For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead.
Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Taylor Lorenz

I cleaned up the article, removing various parts of the article that discussed unsubstantiated rumors, used grammar to create a negative tone, remove unsourced assertions, and many other edits that were intended to ensure the article is a NPOV, is balanced (eg removed claims about her from an editorial on fox news that she rebutted) and generally cleaned up the article.

User Little Professor then reverted my edits, claiming that my edit contained "Mass introduction of unsourced material, insertion of POV" among other claims. My edits were specifically to improve tone, avoid libelous information, and were all responding directly to sources (or lack thereof).

The diff for Little Professor's edits is here.

I will grant Little Professor that I cannot decide on my own that fox news is unreliable, however that edit removed an allegation from a news organization that regularly attacks Lorenz.

Little Professor also accused me of misleading edit summaries without any evidence.

As Lorenz is a very polarizing figure, and is a well known target of online harassment and abuse, it is especially important that her article take a neutral tone and follow the rules for biographies of living persons. Little Professor's edit to remove my edits seems to be in bad faith.

The diffs for my edits are as follows:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240589386

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240589622

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240590519

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591071

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591321

6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240591714

7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240593893

8. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240594080

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=1240594239 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leirbagflow (talk • contribs) 00:10, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which of you is responsible for the repeated use of the verb "reveal" (compare MOS:SAY)? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure but I've just removed instances of the word 'reveal'. Leirbagflow (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

👍. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reading over, but hard to really get a sense of exactly what the error or BLP violation is on either side? Both versions seem basically good enough? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article violated (and may still violate) NPOV WP:BLPBALANCE WP:AVOIDVICTIM and a number of other policies.

The original page (prior to my edits that little professor reverted) contained a ton of unbalanced information, was headed in the direction of WP:ATTACK and generally attempted to list all the dirt anyone could find on Lorenz. She has been the subject of a long, vile, coordinated harassment campaign that was spilling onto the article about her.

My edits were an attempt to begin cleaning up the article. Little Professor reverted my changes and accused me of multiple things with no evidence. I've asked Little Professor for that evidence and have gotten no response (see my talk page). Delectopierre (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer 'said' to 'revealed', generally speaking. It's more neutral; 'revealed' sounds like taking as granted that the statement is true, and also has connotations of admitting or accusing of wrongdoing.

As for edit #3, both youtubers continue to say that they weren't contacted prior to publication. See eg [1]. And considering the circumstances I don't think we can dismiss their claims. The former wording is better; if we quote the latest editor's note then for balance we should also cite Mazeika. Hi! (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Hill_(performer)

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

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

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

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

Emily A. Holmes

Resolved

– Article now ECP for six months, thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More eyes and views would be useful at Emily A. Holmes. This is an article about an academic. There is a slow-moving content dispute about whether allegations that she has bullied postgraduate students should be included. This has been discussed on the article's Talk page, but not resolved. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least four editors involved who are SPAs, whose only edits have been to the article and/or the talk page, three want to add them, one wants to remove them. If the disruption continues, you could request page protection for ECP. Another alternative would be to have a RfC. Holmes doesn't appear to be a high profile individual, so multiple sources should be used, and another thing to consider is if these allegations had a significant impact on her academic career. For the time being, I would leave them out. It also looks like the source being used was censured for having been in violation of good journalistic practice in relation to the article they published about Holmes. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:08, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article it's based upon has an update at the end pointing to a ruling by the Swedish media ombudsman about the reporting[2]. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both, that's helpful. I'd missed the link to the ombud ruling. Reference has been added again by one of the SPAs. I've removed it and requested ECP. Tacyarg (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even without that ruling, this person fell under WP:NPF. A more relaxed WP:PUBLICFIGURE standard requires multiple sources and that wasn't given in those edits. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Zegler again

Not because of the "Free Palestine" thing like above, but about the inclusion of whether her comments on Snow White being allegedly problematiced sparking an internet troll review bombing is bad.

Brewing edit war, would like to know if WP:PUBLICFIGURE would apply here or if it would be better on the Snow White film. (seems there were a few sources talking about it?)

Pinging @Lisha2037 and @Spanneraol Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No edit war from my part as I haven’t undid any edits. Another user agreed with the content you and I added. @Spanneraol seems to think it’s internet trolls doing the backlash which completely isn’t true. Various sources in Wikipedia’s list of relatable sources reported on her comments and controversy. They were taken out of context. I didn’t add anything about her comments on Palestine or how she’s a Latina; I only added the comments and behaviours directly related to the story of Snow White. Im willing to bet the movie is going to bomb because of the bad publicity, heck Disney already moved the release date cause of it, and then everyone will be going to her Wikipedia page to find what happened. Lisha2037 (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You tried to add something, you were reverted, and you tried to add it again without discussing first.. which is the definition of edit warring. Spanneraol (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry did you check who reverted it? It wasn’t me. Please look at what you’re saying as you clearly are not. I think the general consensus is that it’s valid to add it so I’m going to add the content in again with even more sources. Unless you can find sources to back up your claim. I can also report you for edit warring as you reverting an edit made by two different accounts constituents edit warring? It applies to both sides. Lisha2037 (talk) 20:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is that if you add something and are reverted you need to discuss your content on the talk page without re-adding it. And since there is an ongoing discussion you should NOT be unilaterally adding the disputed content. Spanneraol (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Emhoff

[Douglas Emhoff] his biography states that he is married to Kamala Harris the 49th president of the United States.

An election that has not happened yet!!!!!!

Here's the link to his page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doug_Emhoff#:~:text=Douglas%20Craig%20Emhoff%20(born%20October,president%20of%20the%20United%20States. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B001:1B86:0:48:AB6C:C701 (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says "the 49th vice president of the United States". Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imane Khelif

I removed a comment from the talk page of this article for violating WP:BLP per the header Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. I was reverted almost immediately with the edit summary citing WP:OTHERSCOMMENTS. Both of us posted on each other's talk pages at much the same time; I explained why I removed their comment, and I suggested they self-revert their adding it back. They declined to do so. Therefore, I'm coming here as the next step.

Reinsertion of removed comment

Given Khelif's public statements are that she is a woman, and especially given the fact that she is taking legal action through French courts, I feel the 'potentially libellous' reason for removing the comment applies. I would appreciate this being looked at by other editors now. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 23:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one disputes that she is a woman and there was nothing "potentially libellous" in the removed comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conditional statement "If P then Q" is not an assertion that P is true (neither that it is false). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 00:59, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel it's unnecessary to remove the comment. Whether or not DSD is mentioned, our article is likely to mention the claim she has XY chromosomes, and that some people have called her a man. Given the controversy there's no realistic way to exclude mention of those. Given that, I don't see see how the DSD stuff really introduces anything that would raise concerns. (I mean at the current time, there's even mention of DSD in a quote we give from one of the sources.) Note that this means I don't entirely agree with the comments above either. While I don't see see it raises BLP issues here given the situation, if this was just some random person without any similar content in the article, where it was perhaps only discussed in 4chan threads or something, I'd argue allowing such random unsourcable speculation is harmful. Likewise if the continued speculation goes past the point of it being a possibly productive attempt to improve the article, then it should be stopped although that's more of a behavioural issue than a must remove one. Nil Einne (talk) 12:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been indefinitely blocked from Khelif article and talk page by Valereee. I'm having a hard time understanding why. Any comments from uninvolved editors? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking notice says it's for your speculation on an article subject's medical condition and links to that quote where it looks like that's what you were doing. So, I think that's your answer. You can always ask Valereee for more explanation, that's better than asking random editors for comments on an act they are uninvolved in. Go directly to the admin who imposed the block. You can disagree with it, and it seems that you do, but it seems self-explanatory to me. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“Links to that quote” does it? Edit: oh I see not the talk-page post but the block-log entry. The relevant comment does not contain any speculation, it contains a conditional argument that illustrates the possible negative consequences of asserting in Wikivoice that someone *does not have* a medical condition, without appropriate sourcing. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re it looks like that's what you were doing. In what way would I be doing "speculation"? Speculation is the activity of guessing possible answers to a question without having enough information to be certain (Cambridge Dictionary) and is clearly different from a conditional statement that makes no claim about how things are. My comment does not make a medical claim - it does not state, suggest or imply that a living person has a medical condition - but is about the potential consequences of certain narratives that suggest that this person does not have a medical condition. It focuses on impact, not diagnosis, and contains the kind of considerations that WP editors should be free to make if we are to write verifiable and balanced BLPs. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... and you probably shouldn't continue to discuss Kheif here or anywhere else until that block is lifted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A block is not a topic ban. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nil Einne, I don't think we mention anywhere that tons of people have speculated that Donald Trump has a personality disorder, do we? I would assume that's because BLP+MEDRS. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should not extrapolate the consensus of this RfC about Trump and make it a general BLP+MEDRS rule that is not written anywhere. How do you explain that Vladimir Putin says In April 2022, tabloid newspaper The Sun reported that based on video footage Putin may have Parkinson's disease? I'm sure we have other BLPs that provide information and/or hypotheses about medical conditions without citing biomedical literature. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT is not a good argument. If other articles are making medical diagnosis or speculating about medical diagnosis without WP:MEDRS sourcing then that should be corrected. It doesn't mean you get to claim an exception. TarnishedPath^talk 12:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not claiming an exception. I'm not sure that WP:MEDRS applies to medical information about individuals, such as diagnosis (some editors have ruled this out in recent discussions, see the Imane Khelif talk page here and the WP:MEDRS talk page here), but even if MEDRS does apply to individuals, it certainly doesn't preclude covering the existence of public debates about the health and medical conditions of public figures such as athletes. Since WP is supposed to cover these debates, editors should be allowed to address their topic in talk page discussions without waiting for MEDRS-compliant sources that will never arrive (a "review article" about Imane Khelif published in a "reputable medical journal"...?). Blocking an editor for merely mentioning (without advocating) a hypothesis that is stated and discussed by dozens of news organisations (e.g., Independent, NYT, DW, BBC), sport journalists (e.g., Barney Ronay, Alan Abrahamson, Martin Samuel), academics, experts and feminists (e.g., Doriane Lambelet Coleman, Colin Wright, Helen Lewis) is not OK. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gitz6666: Best thing to do, is walk away from the entire topic for six months. Then, request your page block be overturned. GoodDay (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Vaz

I had some questions about the use of primary sources like birth certificates/records or marrage certificates/records which are publically accessible via a state government (Government of Goa) website called "Goa Online" [3]. Another editor placed the non-primary source needed tags [4] [5]. I had removed them emphasizing on WP: PRIMARY, more details can be read at the talk page Talk:Irene Vaz#Non primary source needed tag (Please do note that I personally found records such as these more reliable than secondary or primary sources.) Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read through WP:BLPPRIMARY? I'd be very cautious about using primary sources like this. First issue is how to confirm the record is for this person, not someone else named Irene Vaz? Using good secondary sources that will have done that vetting via an editor is far, far safer and reduces the amount of personal details potentially exposed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire I have confirmed the birth name and dates via a different secondary source like books, publications etc. Hence I'm 100% sure that they both it belongs to the same person. Also added to this the source isn't that easy to access since it requires all the personal details of the person first, not to forget you need registration to access this site. The problem here is also not the birth dates or birth place which have been confirmed via a secondary source. It is more of use of such these source for BLPs Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 14:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any secondary sources discussing these primary sources, or supporting the underlying claims, in the article. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear that public documents like these should not be used, except when discussed by secondary sources. If you're intending to use the primary sources as supplementary documents, than you need to include the secondary sources that discuss them. Woodroar (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar Hi, I have added the source at the end of the paragraph. I'm afraid it's an offline citation so you won't be able to verify it yourself. However leaving that aside, if we see BLP:PRIMARY it does also state that Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.. So to summarise, have I verified the subject's birth names dates etc via a secondary source? yes. Am I using this source as an additional reference to provide more details about the person? Yes. Does this primary source whatsoever comprises the privacy of the subject? No, (Why? because you need registration and have to be a sound educated person who knows to how to use this website and service.) This comes back to WP:PRIMARY, which actually does support my argument. So do you think it is okay to use this source as for additional context keeping in mind there's are/is secondary sources that back the reliability of the subject's birth or other details? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 15:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to "Mazarello, Wilson (10 March 2018). Konkani Khell Tiatr. Panaji, Goa: Dalgado Konknni Akademi. pp. 124–125, 127." Can you provide more information about this source? How does it discuss the primary source ("Registration of birth") being used? Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't go completely in detail, but in a nutshell it provides biographical information about the person. It tells the birth dates of the person, their parents name which I cross verified and only then I used the primary source. To be honest, I have been using the above mentioned website personally for several years, it is quite reliable I'd say. I'd use it for independent research for my personal work. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 16:33, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As JustAnotherCompanion just said, I think there's a misunderstanding here. We can't cite personal details about living persons to a "Registration of birth" (birth certificate). That's WP:BLP policy. However, if reliable, secondary sources discuss that primary document (the birth certificate) itself, then we can include the birth certificate only to supplement the secondary sources. For example, plenty of secondary sources discuss Barack Obama's birth certificate at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Because Obama is a living person, we should not cite any information to the birth certificate. But we do include the birth certificate because it may help our readers understand more as they read the article and secondary sources.

So I have to ask again: does the "Konkani Khell Tiatr" source discuss Irene Vaz's birth certificate? Or are you using it to support claims like Vaz's birth date? Woodroar (talk) 17:21, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the source does discuss the birth certificate, could you briefly summarize the context of that? Is there something odd or unusual there? Same for the marriage certificate. If all that's needed there is that they were married and to whom, a secondary source is more than adequate and preferred. Ravensfire (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you've used the goaonline Birth/Death certificate lookup in multiple articles - [6], they made need to be reviewed as well and the primary sources considered for removal. Even if the person has died, birth and death dates are best suited for secondary sources. Ravensfire (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the person has died, WP:BLPPRIMARY doesn't apply. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And nevertheless it is still better to use secondary sources in that case. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention her death, but if it was recent (the last year or so) then BLP policies still apply. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar It is only birth dates, birth names, parents detals that have been mentioned. I have then verified it with the the birth record, since I found the same parents and other information of the person leaving no room for duplicate persons. Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:27, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If all of that information is in a reliable, secondary source, then just use the secondary source. Woodroar (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to WP:AGF here, because I don't think you realise you have been talking at cross-purposes with other editors in the discussion so far. I can understand how this can happen - the brain sees what it expects to see when things are similar. In this case the policy they are asking you to look at is not the policy you are quoting back at them. Therefore I am taking the opportunity to invite you, clearly and unambiguously, to look at WP:BLPPRIMARY - note the extra three letters, BLP - and see how it applies to the edits you wish to make. I hope once you have looked at the right policy you will have a better understanding of what to do next. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherCompanion Uh I think there might have been a confusion, but I can't use WP:Primary as you've said because of BLP reasons, I get that now. I was looking for a "loophole" or anything sort if any such primary sources can be included. As the policy says it's okay to use as a "supplement to the secondary source", otherwise than this I guess it's not really appreciated to use such sources. If I'm getting this right? Rejoy²⁰⁰³(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are no loopholes, I'm afraid. WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth. Regarding using them as a supplement, I see this has already been explained by another editor earlier.

Consider this - how do you know that the birth certificate you have found is the right one for the right person? If it's because you have a secondary source stating this information, then just use the secondary source. If it's because you have done your own research, then you cannot use it as a source because that is a WP:NOR breach. (And if you take a little from column A and a little from column B by saying "I have found a source that provides [information] about the person, and I have looked at the public records and [information] matches, so I now have their DOB and can use it in an article-" you can't, because this would be WP:SYNTH.

The long and short of it is that a high bar is set for BLP articles, and if you can't clear that bar, that's it. The editor who merely flagged your reference was actually being kind; other editors would remove the suspect source (citing BLPPRIMARY) and unless there are other sources, they would also remove the birthday (citing WP:DOB). JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should really never be using birth certificates unless they have been widely discussed in secondary sources, particularly for high-profile public figures such as the Obama example given above. In addition to BLPPRIMARY, there are other concerns such as WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:NPOV to think of. Many people consider their date of birth to be private info, and we should respect that, always erring on the side of caution. Details such as the street they were born on also seems to cross the line into privacy concerns. Likewise, many private individuals don't want their name published on Wikipedia, so we need to respect that as well. This includes parents, siblings, friends and other relatives. Unless these people are notable enough to have their own article we really need to avoid naming them in the subject's, even if those names are found in secondary sources but especially if they come from primary sources only. (See: WP:BLPNAME.) Primary sources like birth records are what secondary sources use, and for the most part when we use them we're no longer doing the work of an encyclopedic researcher but that of a newspaper reporter, which is crossing the line into original research. It's the same reason we don't use tax records or phone books. We should really avoid using those kinds of sources unless there is a real overriding need. In most cases if secondary sources don't report the info then neither should we, and if they do then we don't need the primary sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about the use of Facebook sources? The article now uses her own Facebook post as a citation to the date of her wedding anniversary. Do WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSPFB apply here, too? SerChevalerie (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BLPSELFPUB and WP:ABOUTSELF, we can use the subject's own social media to support some content—but never when it involves third parties, which this does. I've removed that content, along with some other poorly-sourced claims. Woodroar (talk) 14:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Valmorbida

There has been recent and ongoing edit warring taking place at Andy Valmorbida. Please would an uninvolved editor familiar with BLP policies take a look? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Magazine

A source was added to Screams Without Words with insinuations that several witnesses provided false testimony. The source, Yes! (U.S. magazine), hasn't been discussed on RSN yet AFAIK. There are no red flags in terms of reliability, though there is a transparent agenda, in the magazine and especially the (freelance) author of the particular piece. Could an uninvolved editor weigh in on discussion of whether this is okay for BLP? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Guantanamo Bay detainees

The page at List of Guantanamo Bay detainees appears to be a huge WP:BLPCRIME violation. It attempts to list by name all the people known to be detained at Guantanamo Bay, which the article describes (in footnote) as "suspected unlawful combatants". The strong majority of these people are not blue links, they're folks sourced to a similar Washington Post list, for whom we have no information but name and nation. Many of these people have not been charged with, much less convicted of, any such unlawful activity. (The list was created by a since-WP:CBANned editor who frequently sought to cover terror-related topics in inappropriate detail.) I attempted to raise the issue on the article's talk page several days ago to no response. Before I go to the effort of either trying to have it deleted or the sizable effort to alter it to a blue-links-only list of notable detainees, I thought I should check to see if others feel my BLP concerns may be inappropriate. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not taking a view on this myself just yet, but putting my "What would I do if I was someone who wanted to defend this article" hat on; I see BLPCRIME says editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, I would say "The list does not violate that. It doesn't say these people are criminals or accuse them of having committed crimes. It just states the simple fact that they are (or have been held) at Guantanamo Bay, that's all."

The list headings are 'Name', 'Nationality', 'Captured' and 'Note'. None of the first three involve suggesting the person has committed a crime. A spot-check of the notes field shows it's mainly appears to be used to bald facts - age at capture, if they've been released/repatriated, etc. I don't see any notes stating what crime they've allegedly committed, and again, putting the above hat back on, if there was such a note on any entry "We will remove that note/entry, we don't need to delete the whole list."

I think for it to be a BLPCRIME violation, it would have to be demonstrated that "Detained at Guantanamo" means "Has been accused of committing a crime. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to waste any time debating against this strawman editor you're cosplaying as. Do we have any actual editors who feel that being placed on a list of people being held at a location for those suspected of being unlawful combatant is not a suggestion of them having violated combat laws, and that these names of database-sourced unnotable people serves some encyclopedic purpose that trumps privacy concerns. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise, I was trying to be helpful and it wasn't my intention to create a strawman. If you'd like me to strike or remove my comment I will willingly do so. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that serves an encyclopedic purpose, yes. It's just as easy to read the list as "People the U.S. government has illegally detained" as "Terrorists", and advocacy on behalf of those detained has focused on getting their names out there and humanizing them, not on promoting their privacy. There's encyclopedic information about most/all of these detentions, and one role of an independent media (which I'd broadly categorize Wikipedia under, even if we're WP:NOTNEWS) is to publicize important information about the murkier affairs of state. So yes, we must "seriously consider", but here that serious consideration leads me to "leave it".

That said, I don't like all the stubs we have on the detainees; those are BLPvio magnets and generally unfair. They should either be expanded or redirected to the list (which has already been done with quite a few in the past). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the advocacy is presumably not driven by the subjects themselves. As for "There's encyclopedic information about most/all of these detentions", I'm certainly not seeing it on the list; for about half of them, the only other information beside their name is their nationality. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:55, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a stand-alone list, so the list itself is notable because they have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, and the criteria for inclusion on the list is "detainees that have spent time at Guantanamo Bay". If you think the list should be limited to those with WP articles or detainees who are otherwise independently notable, that is certainly within editorial discretion according to WP:NLIST and WP:LISTCRITERIA. But I don't see this list as a huge WP:BLPCRIME violation. A problem I do see with the list is the lack of the article being updated to reflect what became of these detainees. My guess is the overwhelming majority of them had to have been released, because the current detainees list says as of December 2023, only 30 detainees remain at Guantanamo Bay. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on characterisation of BLP subject's wife's actions following convictions

I could do with a more experienced and diplomatic pair of eyes on Talk:Adam Britton. I feel like I'm not communicating well. The dispute revolves around how much detail to include on his wife's actions following his high-profile convictions, and how to frame that detail if indeed it is to be included. Thanks. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The wording was sensational, which isn't terribly surprising when you check the supporting source and see that all its substantive content was attributed to the Daily Mail. I've removed it again. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel silly having not noticed that, somehow. Thanks for removing it, we shouldn't (obviously) be sourcing BLP stuff to that. Or anything else. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on Asmongold

There is an RFC you may be interested in on Talk:Asmongold as whether or not to include his surname within the article. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Sackler

Is calling someone "evil" in the lead section really appropriate for a living person?

Regardless of how we feel about a person, is it really appropriate to say that the Sackler family is "most evil family in America" in the LEAD section of a biography? Is this the right tone for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.10.129 (talk) 21:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as long as its wikivoice and its attributed to multiple sources (see wp:Attribution and wp:publicfigure ) then yeah

i mean maybe there is an argument for whethers its due in the lede… but he did start an opioid crisis that has killed hundreds of thousands of young and middle aged americans who had decades of life to live Bluethricecreamman (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really accusing someone of being responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths on the BLP/N noticeboard... Traumnovelle (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's inappropriate and has been removed from the article and the Purdue Pharma article. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not appropriate, and the quote refers to the "family", so it is inappropriate to use that quote to disparage an individual. Furthermore, if you look at the sources being used for the quote, the first one is only a headline, which is not a reliable source, and the remaining three sources are clearly referring to remarks made by one individual, congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee. I agree with the removal from both articles. Isaidnoway (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Prince

Jonathan Prince is sourced only to a web forum and a wedding announcement. He hosted one short-lived game show and supposedly created an NBC drama twelve years later. Besides IMDb, I've found no definitive proof that these are even the same guy -- "Jonathan Prince" + "Quiz Kids" + "American Dreams" turned up only IMDb and mirrors, with zero results on GBooks, GNews, or Newspapers.com. Sources about "American Dreams" only say "American Dreams creator Jonathan Prince said blah blah blah" and give zero detail on his career or involvement in the show. He supposedly had producer/writer credits on Blossom and a role in Throb, but again, I could find nothing other than IMDb linking these roles together. Given his relatively normal name, there's a non-zero chance that IMDb may have conflated a couple people. I find it very sus that we have literally nothing to prove all of this is even the same guy.

tl;dr: Seems to have had his fingers in a few pies but nothing passing WP:GNG. Strongly suggest prod or AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmg38:, @220 of Borg: Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources present in the article certainly don't establish notability. Is there any reason why aren't you submitting it to AfD yourself? NicolausPrime (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NicolausPrime: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing is the reason "TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed" Nil Einne (talk) 05:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly construed should include using WP:BLPN for WP:PROXYING. Reported to AE.[7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have looked harder. I have added multiple sources based on an "American Dreams" search alone that discusses how he wrote branded content aka advertisements into the show. Searches on newspapers.com during the appropriate time periods discuss some of his tv roles. Unfortunately, I can not review them deeply enough due to the limits of my account. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name suppression in New Zealand and BLP

In New Zealand law we have name suppression for defendants. This is almost always granted upon request and usually (due to appeals and other extensions) extends until around a conviction is secured. Sometimes a defendant may receive permanent name suppression and sometimes this name suppression is breached either locally or internationally. Internationally not much can be done but Members of Parliament have been fined for breach of name suppression before and the NZ media does not report these names. With the digital age there are many crimes where a defendant has a name suppression order beached by foreign media.

So if foreign media report were to report the name of someone with name suppress in NZ should the name be reported in an article related to the crime, or if the subject has an article should the charge/conviction be mentioned in their article? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BLPCRIME. If a person has been convicted and the conviction is reported by multiple RS (foreign or not), it can be reported on Wikipedia subject to discussion of course. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of BLPCRIME, it doesn't address name suppression. 'For individuals who are not public figures editors must seriously consider not including material that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime.' could be construed as not reporting names of non-public figures who haven't been convicted although that is quite a stretch. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a stretch. Non-public figures are not supposed to be identified on Wikipedia unless the notoriety of the accusation actually makes them public figures. In cases with name suppression, are they even a public figure without overwhelming (foreign) coverage? Now if they were already a public figure beforehand, then all bets are off. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see what you mean, how about following a conviction if name suppression is still granted, this usually happens when someone is appealing a decision but may just be a permanent suppression they've been granted. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The conviction can be noted but is subject to discussion on whether it's WP:DUE for inclusion. The only cases I can think of with post-conviction suppression is when the victim is related to the convicted. Factors for discussion would include impact on the victim WP:AVOIDVICTIM and the quality of the sources. It would take a high quality source to do independent verification of a conviction that is locally suppressed. Most foreign sources would just rely on repeating local sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, as noted below, permanent post-conviction name suppression can and has been granted in other cases, especially when the consequence of naming them is assessed as being seriously out of proportion to the offence, the legal requirement is "extreme hardship". Note also harm to the family or others is also considered. (I mean not because they are victims of the offender, but because of association between them and the offender.) Name suppression also often continued after conviction for various reasons including if the offender is trying to for permanent name suppression, to safeguard the appeals process, or if there are other offences before the courts. (Maybe I'm wrong, but my impression is it's actually rare in NZ for name suppression to lapse immediately following conviction, there's normally at least some period after since there needs to be time for any such applications. Sometimes name suppression will be granted early on but will be removed before trial. I.E. you generally either know the name before conviction, or you don't know until at least a short time after.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might find the discussion about Jesse Kempson of interest. The name was kept out of the article by the editing community (with a little help from some policies) for the seemingly eternal duration of its suppression. In short, this site is governed by US law, however in cases like this you need some solid sourcing, not the type of rumour mill where these names often appear. And you'll often need a consensus. Someone without a conviction is going to have a higher threshold to getting named. But at the end of the day, the community decides, usually starting from the most conservative approach. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traumnovelle, the fundamental principle enshrined in policy is that Wikipedia is Not censored and that the primary servers and offices owned by the Wikimedia Foundation are located in the United States and that US First Amendment law applies in general and most broadly. But if an individual Wikipedia editor reveals personally identifying information and that editor violates the repressive laws of their own country, then nothing can protect them from retribution by a dictatorship. Decisions about inclusion or exclusion of contentious content should be made based on policy based arguments, not on any threats to throw a Wikipedia editor into jail, and anyone who makes such threats should be indefinitely blocked. I happen to be an editor who voluntarily discloses lots of personally identifying information because I am an American and consider myself a semi-public figure. I could list a dozen countries where I theoretically might live but don't, but I would not disclose my personal information because that might lead to genuine threats against me and my family. I have had several such threats and risks and do not want more of them. Cullen328 (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's more nuanced than I thought after reading that: I hadn't considered the angle of widespread breaches leading to an overturned conviction. I don't find the NOTCENSORED arguments too compelling when weighed against ethical and legal (if the conviction were to be overturned due to widespread breaches of a suppression order) considerations. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the other extreme, not NZ but in the case of Talk:George Pell/Archive 1#Conviction of Sexual Offences Against Children and Suppression Order in Victorian County Court his conviction was so widely reported that I don't think there was serious consideration of excluding it. [8]. It's actually mentioned at George Pell#Cathedral trial. A topical sort of related example might be 2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident where WP:BDP clearly applies. It's been claimed reporting the victim's name is illegal in India. However it's been widely used during protests including by her family, and widely covered in at least non Indian media so our article does mention it despite continued requests for us to exclude it to the extent there's a very big box at Talk:2024 Kolkata rape and murder incident to try and stop such requests. Nil Einne (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, while I didn't follow it that well, for the case of Grace Millane's murderer, I suspect it helped that the murder was primarily of interest in NZ and to a much less extent, the UK. While the UK isn't covered by NZ's laws, and doesn't have such a strong name suppression system, they do have a more similar understanding of subjudice etc to NZ so I think there was probably more willingness from the media there to not publish the name then there would be if it was something which was interest in the US where even naming minors is fairly common [9] (compared to the UK, for example 2024 Southport stabbing and Murder of Brianna Ghey). Nil Einne (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One final example of how these things can get complicated, is with the Killing of Nahel Merzouk. The decedent is named (a minor at the time of his death), and allegation surrounding offences leading up to the killing and more historic ones also. However IIRC and also going by the talk page, I think it was common in France and even in some non French sources to just refer to him as Nahel M, and at least initially only a few sources published anything about allegations of historic offences. The police officer who killed Nahel Merzouk, is still only called Florian M in our article. It sounds like at least one French source did name him in full but I think very few French and other sources did. The protests etc means there was much more focus on Nahel Merzouk than there was on the police officer. I think this means even in France there's no legal requirement not to name either one, although I'm not sure, but instead it's been mostly a matter of cultural norms. Nil Einne (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name suppression is normally temporary and intended to prevent interference with the judicial process. It's currently in the news because a temporary name suppression (due to expire in 14 days) has been applied to someone recently convicted of crimes against young people. In the (much less common) cases of permanent suppression it's intended to prevent identifications of the victims of the criminals. There is no deadline and editors can easily wait 14 days (or however long) until suppression is lifted and the details published. Daveosaurus (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. Permanent name suppression can be granted for multiple reasons, here is one example: [10] Traumnovelle (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Elizondo labeled a "conspiracy theorist" repeatedly without citation, page locked

Luis Elizondo is currently in the news as a former Pentagon director who wrote a book about UFOs. Apparently several users have added uncited negative material calling the individual a conspiracy theorist with no mainstream or apparently any sourcing actually calling them a "conspiracy theorist", leading to editing fights and the page being protected:

There may be more but I stopped looking there. On the article talk page, User:Einheit947 posted about that "conspiracy theorist" removal here asking who removed that uncited material. I noticed it yesterday and flagged it as needing citation.

Additionally, User:Einheit947 noted that this apparent BLP violation was highlighted on a Reddit post that claims in their comments to have 100,000+ views already:

https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/1f1lxhq/when_you_google_lue_elizondo_the_first_thing_it

Just sharing here so you all can do whatever is necessary with the article under the BLP policy, and because the labeling of Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist" has apparently reached media levels of attention. I will assume I should leave a quick note to notify the listed people here on the various talk pages, so I will do that. Good luck with this mess. -- Very Polite Person (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reddit is not 'media levels of attention'. Re: 'conspiracy theorist', This is a person who is currently on a book tour, promoting a book in which he alleges that the US government is in possession of advanced technology made off-world by non-human intelligence and is covering it up. MrOllie (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not appropriate at all to label the person as a conspiracy theorist without many reliable sources to back that claim up. We here may all agree that claim about UFO is bonkers, but it is our responsibility to avoid describing ppl in labels not used in RSes — Masem (t) 20:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, you've been editing Wikipedia for well over a decade. There is no excuse for you to not be familiar with WP:OR and WP:BLP. As far as I'm concerned, adding unsourced contentious labels to a BLP is worse than vandalism. Likewise to Sgerbic and Ixocactus. You'd be completely in the right here if you only held off long enough to find multiple high quality sources explicitly describing him as a conspiracy theorist in those words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page for the article in question has resolved this issue. Please see that discussion. Sgerbic (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying behaviour is still problematic in regards to not understanding BLP and OR. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit warring to restore the label is troubling especially given one user has an Arbcom warning/sanction and the other thinks his own original research based on the subject's biography is appropriate for the label. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I done only one revert because I trusted in MrOllie edits before me. My bad. This is a serious claim and I supposed it's on sources. But after revert I checked the last sources (NYTimes and NewsAu) and realize that conspiracy theory is not mentioned. Then I stoped. Now waiting for allien technology for a better world. Ixocactus (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:The job description of U.S. intelligence officers is to spread conspiracy theories and misinformation. However, unless reliable sources routinely refer to him as a conspiracy theorist, then it violates BLP to call him one. Also, if any sources are found that refer to him as one, they should only be presented as the opinions of the people who made them, unless there is consensus in the sources he meets the description. ~~~~ TFD (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to briefly chime in and concur with TFD and what seems to be the developing consensus--while I personally have no qualms with the label, this doesn't seem to be a common descriptor in reliable sources, even those of a more skeptical bent. As ever, best to hew to the wording in the sources. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. Whilst it is fairly obvious that his book does espouse conspiracy theories - there are even more outlandish ones than the one mentioned, judging by the book's precis, we still cannot call him one in Wikivoice without those RS. Black Kite (talk) 08:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stewards of one of the world’s most influential information platforms, it is our shared duty to ensure that the content we provide is balanced, accurate, and upholds the highest standards of integrity. I need to draw attention to a troubling pattern of coordinated editing behavior that is undermining the quality and neutrality of a particular high-profile article and backup what I have seen by OP.

A group of editors has been systematically inserting unsupported and potentially defamatory information while masking these changes as minor or grammatical edits. This tactic is a deliberate attempt to bypass scrutiny and violates our core policies on Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) and Neutral Point of View (NPOV). The insidious nature of these edits, disguised as routine corrections, is eroding the credibility that our readers rightfully expect from us.

Even more concerning is the targeted removal or weakening of well-sourced positive information from reputable publications like The New York Times. These edits do more than mislead; they distort the reader's perception and compromise the integrity of the article. The subtle manipulation of sentence structure and the strategic removal of key citations have turned this piece into a tool for misinformation rather than an accurate reflection of the subject.

This matter demands immediate and thorough intervention and supervision. I strongly urge the community to review and, if necessary, completely overhaul of the article to restore its integrity. The stakes are significant—not just for this article, but for the trust that millions of readers place in Wikipedia as a reliable and neutral resource.

Let’s act decisively to correct these issues and reaffirm our commitment to maintaining Wikipedia as a global standard for truth and accuracy. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... That's a fair bit of proselytizing there, but I don't see much specifics.

Please use wikipedia policies and specific diffs of edits to point out issues. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242007549

For example, if you look at the links the poster added above, you can clearly see it. The edit note is "grammar" change where he really added "conspiracy theorist" an unsupported claim, above of and beyond all the information detailed in various mainstream sources about his career. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a revert. I did not originally add the text in question. I was putting the article back to a previous state because someone (you) had turned a sentence into ungrammatical mush. MrOllie (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to address the issue by requesting the removal of the "conspiracy theorist" label, as it clearly violates both BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) and NPOV (Neutral Point of View) policies. This label is misleading, not supported by reliable sources, and gives undue weight to a contentious characterization. According to Wikipedia’s guidelines, content about living persons must avoid defamatory language. Furthermore, prioritizing a disputed label over Luis Elizondo's verified career accomplishments is improper and goes against Wikipedia’s standards.

I myself was fixing this revision of your own:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1242094480 (edit summary: : rv unsourced claims, disputed claims, and a reinsertion of grammatical errors)

But as you say you were not the original person who added this ? I'm not sure who did only that you "revised it"., But whatever the sequence of events ? I noticed the issue and took action because it was leading to widespread misinformation. As discussed on the talk page, this edit led to Google labeling Luis Elizondo as a "conspiracy theorist," as his main job role, which then became trending on Reddit ("Google calls lue elizondo a conspiracy theroist") and now Wikipedia and Google both look bad. Unfortunately, whoever added the label achieved the disruption they intended. ObjectiveWheel (talk) 01:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shitposts in biographies

A suggestion at Talk:Tim Walz#Inclusion of Horse S*men Controversy? says that Tim Walz should include a section balancing one at JD Vance#Public reactions. The Vance article promotes a shitpost against Vance saying he fucked a couch, while the Walz suggestion is that he had his stomach pumped after drinking horse semen. I would just delete the Vance nonsense and fully protect the article but there is a massive discussion at Talk:JD Vance#The couch thing. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The "couch thing" send to have gotten more notice than the equine emissions, but neither belong in the BLPs imo. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the whole point of BLP is to avoid this sort of rubbish from being included in BLPs based off of contemporary coverage designed to cash in with outrageous headlines. Secondary sources are what we should use to determine content and this kind of garbage isn't going to be included in a biography/memoir/retrospective. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that currently back up that section (newspaper articles) are secondary sources. Cortador (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper articles are not secondary sources typically and in this instance they are primary sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, a newspaper aricle about people’s responses to something is a secondary source; the tweets themselves that it discusses are primary. (It might be primary for small parts like quotes from individuals given directly to the reporter.) But this is just not the important question at all. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A newspaper article providing a quote by a person made in response to something is still a primary source, it validates what that person said but makes no transformative claims around it. Masem (t) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is over there. We don't edit articles out of a desire for subjective "parity", precisely because it introduces bias. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good, but what should happen at the Vance article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should stop WP:FORUMSHOPing the discussion and use the talk page which already has a lengthy discussion on this very topic? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lengthy discussion which has been dragged out and deliberately stalled for two months now while the ridiculous nonsense remains on the page bringing disgrace to Wikipedia, you mean? 2601:600:817F:16F0:9DB3:A3E3:5972:3194 (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose mention per RECENT. I doubt it will endure a year after the election. Cheers. DN (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the whole Piggate story. A total fabrication that many chose to believe as true. Personally, I do think it should be removed from both because I think its a BLP concern and that its just being used for political gain in the election campaign. And I don't think we want Wikipedia to demean itself by posting every lowbrow political rumour or allegation that comes out, there's enough mudslinging around in my view. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't remove or include content in articles based on whether or not someone politically benefits from it. We remove or include content based on its coverage in RS. Cortador (talk) 06:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If an incident is notable (per WP:N), there should be an article on it. If no article is justifiable, mentioning a shitpost is merely an ILIKEIT amplification of the original attack. Johnuniq (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't talking about having a standalone article for the couch thing. We are talking about its inclusion in an already existing article. Cortador (talk) 09:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we also look at DUE. DN (talk) 06:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources do you think justify it's inclusion? Traumnovelle (talk) 08:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ones in the article. Cortador (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Kcmastrpc (talk) 11:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't applicable here, clearly. Did you read the discussion, because those have already been brought up over there. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are primary sources, bar two which are just trivial/primary mentions of the incident but give deep coverage of other events. WP:RSPRIMARY Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for confirming your misunderstanding of sources. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither claim is WP:DUE and so both should be excluded. Simple as. Curbon7 (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both stories are fake news (Walz - Snopes Vance - Snopes, it's just that the Vance one took off a lot more, probably because of the since withdrawn AP story which was supposed to be a fact-check.... Black Kite (talk) 08:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely undue in both articles and reflects poorly on the choices of editors who push to include either hoax. Yes, in a few cases false stories may be due but these are not those few cases. Are either of these stores substantive about the person? Would a summary of the person be lacking for missing these stores? Are we potentially perpetuating a harm be including them (note that do no harm is a critical BLP ARBCOM finding). Springee (talk) 11:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the prose per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP among other things. I suggest editors open an RfC per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE since it's pretty clear this is a contentious topic and there is no clear consensus on inclusion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems premature, there was longstanding consensus for inclusion on the talk page. Consensus can change, perhaps your should demonstrate that it has before removing something that has been supported this long? —Locke Cole • t • c 14:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the hoax is removed while clearly labeled as such, Vance's Stolen Valor accusations should likely be removed from Walz's page due to the serious nature of the (currently unfounded) allegations. According to Wikipedia’s BLP policy: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with respect for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not Wikipedia's role to sensationalize or to be the primary vehicle for spreading provocative claims about people's lives. The potential for harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Although sources have been added to the Stolen Valor (a crime punishable under federal law) comments, there is no consensus among newspapers on whether a crime was committed. Currently, the Stolen Valor claims are presented as fact without acknowledging they may be untrue. There is nothing that makes that comment more newsworthy than the dozen's of other statements he's made; nor have we ever covered the equivalent of attacks on political opponents within their BLP.

Currently, the main differences between the two pages is in regards to one being labeled clearly that it's the media attention (not the hoax itself) in why the Hoax is being covered, where as the "Stolen Valor" comments are being left as if it's a matter of fact; when it hasn't. Per the Guardian, Walz does not meet the definition of Stolen Valor, as written about here and ABC has also reported there is no evidence of such as can be seen here. The Hoax currently has Wikipedia:Consensus while the other is unclear if it does; however both articles likely have to be examined to ensure that wikipedia remains true to its guidelines and presents information as accurately as possible. Wozal (talk) 15:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding, The Hoax currently has Wikipedia:Consensus, can you point to me where it has consensus? Because I can point to no less than ten editors opposing inclusion and multiple editors attempting to remove the content over the past 2 months. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm sure you've read then within the discussions and within Wikipedia:Consensus, consensus is gained through the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy. It is not determined by Votes, A large portion of the conversations on why to exclude revolved around one user's confusion on what constitutes a secondary vs primary source, what a reliable source was, the misuse of Wikipedia:GOSSIP (this wasn't covered because of its face value; it was covered due to the wide coverage by the media and impacted discourse on his candidacy.)(This user does a better job at explaining it than I do) It would be a completely different story if it were written using a different lens.

In the case of the hoax, the claims for it were never about the hoax itself, but rather the attention it received while being clearly labeled as such. In the case of stolen valor, those comments were presented as facts, when they shouldn't be based on reporting.

While consensus (this flowchart shows a simplified version of consensus) can change for any article (we must remember to base it solely on policies and not just because x amount of people say x if it does not relate to policy), we must ensure we are covering things as accurately as we can portray them and ensure that anything that isn't true is either explained or noted as being untrue especially with material like the two here.

In both cases, they contain contentious material which are sourced; how they're presented to the reader is what makes them differ them. One indicates clearly that it is a hoax; the other does so as if it's fact. Both are covered because of the attention they received; even though the latter does not indicate the comments hold no merit based on other sources. Wozal (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. All this political mudslinging is just that, and should not be included as WP:UNDUE. Perhaps some of it (such as the "stolen valor" allegation, not the semen hoaxes) may be worth covering briefly at the campaign articles, but broadly I do not think any of these should be included in the subjects's main articles. Curbon7 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?

The discussion is at WT:MEDRS here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context: Gitz got blocked from Imane Khelif article for continued medical speculation. See User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the reviewing admin suggested to open a thread at WT:MEDRS to clarify the policy issue, which I just did. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

context: they declined your appeal of your page block because your arguments did not convince them to unblock you. Elinruby (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is going to be "it depends" but I would note that BLP is not an area to mess around in, when in doubt attribute or exclude. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tsumyoki

Tsumyoki is the subject's professional name; his real name is Nathan Joseph Mendes. The article body refers to him as "Mendes" throughout. However, I notice that Lady Gaga refers to her as Gaga in most of the article (with the exception of Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta was born into...). Which Wikipedia policy applies here? SerChevalerie (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:SURNAME would be the guide you're looking for here, I believe. For the record, I looked up a few other musicians and Lady Gaga appeared to be the exception, as the ones I looked up - Avicii for example - all used the real surname in prose throughout. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JustAnotherCompanion, thanks. MOS:SURNAME says: When a majority of reliable secondary sources refer to persons by a pseudonym, they should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (e.g. Sting, Snoop Dogg, the Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used. They are citing the example of Sting, which applies the closest in this case. SerChevalerie (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JD Vance Couch Hoax reintroduced without consensus

There is a very long and drawn out contentious discussion on this matter, and has been a very slow moving edit war. In the meantime, until there is an RfC I don't see why such material should be restored per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. I'm pretty much willing to take this to WP:ANEW, but wanted to see if we can't get an admin to intervene in the meantime.

Removal diff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242551121
Restoration ignoring WP:ONUS -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242558302

I am unable to find any RfC on this matter where consensus was affirmed, and WP:BLPRESTORE is pretty clear on this matter, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM I find perennial news sources covering what amounts to WP:GOSSIP doesn't quite meet the "high-quality" bar required for BLPs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, its gossip that isn't particularly substantive and does not belong in an encyclopedic biography...

the hoax may be worth its own wikipedia entry maybe, but might not be worth linking into a person's biography Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go and make an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BLPRESTORE also says Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Having read the talk page discussion regarding this issue, I think the above applies. It would appear (please correct me if I'm wrong at any point) that the discussion started when the hoax was given its own section in the article. As the discussion went on, there appears there wa a loose consensus to keep the information, culminating in one editor removing the separate section and adding a version of the information to another section instead. A later editor moved this information to a different section, and there is possibly still some debate to be had about which is the right place for it.

If no attempt had been made to address concerns, you're absolutely right and BLPRESTORE would apply. But editors have worked hard to make sure that the material is added in a manner that is WP:DUE, and BLPRESTORE would appear to recognise that. If the material is simply deleted whatever happens, that doesn't give editors a fair crack at adding in in an appropriate manner. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC I just started: Talk:JD_Vance#RFC:_Inclusion_of_couch_hoax Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to be unkind, but the RFC appears to poorly formed. You have split it into survey and discussion sections, but you haven't given clear options for the survey, and your own survey vote is effectively a discussion comment. Discussion started here not even an 30 minutes prior to your creation on the RFC - almost nobody has had a chance to contribute. I wish you'd let it play out a little longer here first, then we might have been able to craft a more robust RFC proposal. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah... its my first one.

Should I just delete it and let someone else do it? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ah wait... others have started replying to it... well whoops, I dont think i'm allowed to redo or edit now, right? apologies. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at WP:RFC, which says The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the rfc tag. [Note, bold RFC is because I Wikipedia thought I was trying to actually place the tag here and I didn't know how to escape it.] There is probably still an opportunity to do that, especially if you make an edit to the talk page or the edit summary to make clear that the action is being taken so a better structured RFC can replace it. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, removed the tag, and striked out the text. I'll let someone else do it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the content again. We err on the side of excluding contentious material, especially about a BLP, and especially if the material is shown to be a hoax. This isn't "JD Vance in popular culture" or somesuch, where there might be a good argument to include (there might even be justification for a stand-alone article at this point), but rather the main biographical article about the person, with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. Did you read the paragraph you removed? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then you know your statement I quoted is false, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're getting at, but anyone interested can just take a look at the version before I reverted and confirm that it was under a "public reactions" section, a subsection of the VP campaign. It isn't part of "in popular culture" or the like but part of the main biography as though the hoax has anything to do with a public reaction to Vance-as-VP-candidate. It's either a hoax or a reaction to a hoax, not to Vance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do seem to present it as largely a reaction to Vance's image (sexually repressed, weird, oversharer), they seem to suggest that the reason it went so viral is that it was really believable even if unveracious... That is it seemed like it could be true, even though its not. The longer I see this go on the more I think that perhaps it really is best handled on a stand-alone page with only a short blurb+link here about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's false, why include it? Springee (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the basis for exluding hoaxes? Notability is entirely independent of the truth, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories gets coverage at John F. Kennedy whether there is any underlying truth to the theories or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because unlike the weird couch thing people are still talking about assassination conspiracy theories 50 years later. If people are still talking about Vance humping a couch in 50 years then I guess we'll have an article about it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have more than enough coverage, you can't make a competent good faith argument to exclude based on a lack of coverage... Which is why an argument is being made to exclude it on the grounds that it is false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The threshold for inclusion of facts/information is not "notability" but WP:DUE which is a lower bar indeed. "Notability" is a concept which applies to inclusion of an entire article or topic, and answers the question of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion here. DUE governs the stuff y'all include in articles; if a hoax (or any other fact) isn't adequately documented/covered by RS then it's excluded, but that's distinct from the notability of a subject. Any facts are eligible for inclusion, even if they fail to meet a "notability" bar, as long as they don't exceed WP:UNDUE. Got it, Horsey?

With all that being said, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT apply here, and it's a freakin' tempest in a teapot, so pls delete. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:A630:BA40:F8C:EF24 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in the colloquial sense... Which is DUEWEIGHT (and note that on an academic level notability the term of art is just the application of due weight to the topics themselves). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt I fail to see your point though, DUEWEIGHT is no more dependent on the underlying veracity of the topic than N is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is true that LL Cool J has made love with a sofa, so there's truth; merely misattributed I suppose. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:7135:9DE6:EA27:BF8D (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have a Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. Perhaps instead of fighting over whether this information belongs in a BLP, someone should create that and include it there? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually not a bad idea, 2024 United States presidential election could just have it's own "Misinformation" section for now and if needed, split off from there. I'm still opposed to having the hoax linked to Vance's BLP, similarly to the horse semen hoax for Walz, or whatever weird stuff comes up in this election season. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is that similar? They appear to have gotten vastly different levels of coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does Wikipedia have enough disk space for all the misinfo? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The couch hoax is already covered in Hillbilly Elegy, and WP:Summary Style says only the “most important” parts of Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in the main Vance BLP, so it seems pretty clear that this contentious hoax should not be in the main Vance BLP. People may wish to also take a look at this too, similar issues (re. the lurid rumor about Trump and prostitutes in Moscow). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain what is contentious about the hoax? Everyone seems to agree that this is a hoax/joke, there is no contention otherwise unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When there are jokes at someone’s expense, it undermines them, and causes arguments about whether it’s an appropriate way to conduct a presidential election. We’re having an argument about that right now, for example. VP Harris tweeted, “JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women”, to keep this disgusting lie front and center, and to diminish his stature. If Vance starts telling jokes about Harris having sex with inanimate objects, I likewise would oppose inclusion in her BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janek Rubeš

User:GamerPooper is adding the claim that Janek Rubeš is married to his colleague and friend Honza Mikulka (diff). There is no source for the claim.

Part of the edits is an image that could look like their marriage, but in the YouTube video where it is from, it is described as "Honza had his wedding", not as "our wedding". I also requested the deletion of the image on copyright grounds but I believe that is a separate issue. If the clip was determined to be a valuable source, it can be properly linked.

I tried discussing this on the article talk page but so far I don't believe this has been successful in resolving the issue, even though the article is currently in its original state. — Marvin ^talk 17:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara O'Neill Page full of slander

It is impossible to add information to the page as it has been locked, and what is there is full of false information and slander. One such claim is that every single scientist disagrees with her. Another false claim is that she "failed" nursing school. It also tries to paint her as a religious nutjob by immediately mentioning that she teaches at a seven-day Adventist church. She has taught at one in the past and has discussions with other members of the church as she does attend it. She is not a function of the church. Barbara O'Neill was a practitioner in childhood medicine in Australia, but also, over 22,000 of her patients have signed a petition to repeal the Wales decision on her not being allowed to practice medicine. This is significant, but not mentioned once on Wikipedia as the information on her was written with prejudice and bias. 2600:1700:3AE7:5000:79E3:1FC0:F2D9:3DAA (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article's talk page is not locked. You can post evidence-based suggestions for edits there. Before you do so, it is best to do some due diligence by checking what the article's cited sources say. If they are incorrect or have been misrepresented in some way, you will need to provide evidence to that effect, by supplying reliable sources that support your points for example. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it has been locked in the past:[11] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did change the one bit about "failing" nursing training, which was not quite supported by the source. Otherwise, I second Sean.hoyland's advice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note that petitions are generally a dime a dozen. Internet petitions even more so. They are almost never worth of mentioning even if there is limited reliable secondary source coverage of them. Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Peters

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tim_Peters_(software_engineer)&diff=1241938157&oldid=1240716626

They seem to misinterpret the source, and add a lot of... opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EsotericImplications (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paging @Algr:, who inserted the specific two alleged violations from a laundry list of them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the cited article and its supporting links, the SNL allegation or "cited objection" by the Python Steering Council seems to misrepresent his comments. I'm not sure if the suspension should even be mentioned in the article due to WP:NPF, and I don't see multiple RS reporting on the suspension. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh (actor)

Mukesh (actor) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Recent poor quality edits to the controversies section about accusations - even before that the section was poorly done. I'm placing this here, despite having edited 2 years as IPs, due to inexperience with editing contentious materials that actually have sources for them. – 2804:F1...E1:EACF (talk) 04:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Marçal edit war

User:gregoriosev reverts anyone who removes his assertion without direct citations that Pablo Marcal, a candidate in the Mayoral Race in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It seems he is willing to engage in an edit war. I have not reverted his edit yet, as it could possibly implicate me for edit warring as well (despite exception #7 to the edit war rules). I will note that Marcal was convicted of a financial scam in 2010, as is also mentioned in the article, however his sentence was annulled. Therefore, it can be considered libelous to call him a scammer in the title sentence of the article. The Portuguese wikipedia version of the article does not list him as a scammer. I also request that this page be protected from users with less than 500 edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamjamguy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the contentious label from the lead sentence per BLP. As for the rest of the article, it looks like editors are copying over the "bad stuff" about Marcal from the Portuguese article, which there is quite a bit of, while leaving out the rest. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Garry Nolan -- similar to Luis Elizondo issues other day. Anonymous users are adding without sourcing conspiracy theorist.

Hello,

Similar to this the other day: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_labeled_a_"conspiracy_theorist"_repeatedly_without_citation,_page_locked, a user on Garry Nolan is now doing the same thing, repeatedly assigning the text "conspiracy theorist" to the article of this doctor. This has now spread to Google search results for this living person.

Edit 1:

Edit 2:

Similar behavior from anonymous on Luis Elizondo:

Can we please get Garry Nolan protected? Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been temporarily protected, and a discussion has been opened on the talk page about it. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Ludwick

Sean Ludwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following several attempts by 69.123.211.73 to remove substantial portions of the article, a new account, PamelaHarrLud, appeared at the help desk claiming to be Pamela Harrison Ludwick. PamelaHarrLud says that she is no longer married to Sean Ludwick. According to the sources used in the article, Sean Ludwick is married to Pamela Harrison Ludwick.

I reverted an edit by zzuuzz removing Pamela Harrison Ludwick from the infobox and changing "Ludwick is married to" to "Ludwick married" not because I am unsympathetic to PamelaHarrLud's claim, but because we haven't yet established if PamelaHarrLud really is Pamela Harrison Ludwick or if the couple is divorced. I asked Zzuzz to start a discussion on the talk page but instead they reverted me with an edit summary of "no, BLP is policy; get it right and relevant, or choose not to".

Is this a BLP issue? I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, how is it usually dealt with? Is it customary to remove spouses from the infobox in the event of a divorce? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLPNAME. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through matrimony. Private individuals have a right to retain their privacy. The general practice is to not name spouses, children, family or friends unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own articles. To the average reader, the name means nothing unless there is an article we can link to; it's just a name without a face, so removing it or replacing with a generic descriptor does not alter the reader's understanding of the subject. But to the private individual it is often a very big deal and we usually respect their right to remain private. In this case, she never should have been named at all, so removing it was the right thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank YOU ! PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also from this 2015 source[12] that was in the article, "A number of Hansen’s relatives and friends attended the hearing. So did Ludwick’s wife, Pamela Ludwick. The two are apparently still together even though she initiated divorce proceedings last year." The source also discusses the subject beating his girlfriend (another woman). I wonder why the wife doesn't want to be associated with him anymore. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article you reference is from 2015 and I became officially divorced in 2022. Check court records please. I am remarried and could not get remarried without getting divorced.

Thank you. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not use court records. In this case there is no need to anyhow. Your name should have never been in the article in the first place, so hopefully simply removing it should resolve any issue you have. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand you challenging the removal Counterfeit Purses, I think though that in this case the wife's name and the children's details don't add anything to the article. Removing them isn't going to make any difference to the article. Knitsey (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your consideration and understanding,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not require a complaint; we should generally be cautious particularly in associating an unnotable name of a living person with negative events, of which there are plenty in the article. The name of unnotable people does not add useful information. I have removed the name from the article body. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much for your attention and understanding.

Kindly,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NatGertler Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that Ludwick's wife's name necessarily needs to be included in the article, but I am not sure that she is not relevant to the overall case. One of the sources says Records show that on September 9, 2015, just 10 days after the crash, his Brick Kiln Road property, as well as his townhouse on Sutton Place, were put into the names of limited liability corporations. I assume this was intended to shield the properties from future lawsuits. The source continues His wife, Pamela Harrison Ludwick, sold the Sutton Place townhouse for $5.6 million in August 2021, records show.

I will go along with whatever consensus forms here, but it seems like this decision has been made on "vibes" rather than following any kind of process. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing seems to be based on "vibes". If the process is to "be cautious particularly in associating an unnamable name of a living person with negative events (of which there are plenty in the article). The name of unnotable people does not add useful information."

Why is it relevant that the house was sold in August 2021, to his case ? His civil suit was settled many years before house was sold. None of the information is relevant and all it does is compromise the unnotable person, who is myself. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PamelaHarrLud My comment was not directed at you. We have no way of knowing if you are who you say you are or if what you are saying about a divorce is correct. It would be nice if these cases were dealt with consistently instead of an ad hoc fumbling. In this case, you will likely get what you want, but not because we followed any kind of process designed to help you (or to help us to help you). That was what I meant by "vibes".

Can I ask why you were removing material about your ex-husband's crimes here, here, and here if it was just the name you wanted removed? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what further information does the name give us that just saying "his wife" does not? It doesn't connect to anything beyond this article. If his wife was Queen Elizabeth, that would be a different matter. It's not just "vibes", it's very much in WP:BLPNAME territory. Things like "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." No one has made a claim of any way in which the individual's name signifies anything needed for compete understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and to your point, Nat Gentler, his mistresses name at the time is not noted in any of the Wikipedia entry and she filed multiple suits against my ex husband. Yet, never once is her first or last name listed in Wikipedia and she is in all of the sources used to create Wikipedia entry.

Thank you again for your time,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Nat Gertler. Auto spell corrected. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with just using the "Ludwick's wife" as the identifier. My point was that we might not want to trim too much to avoid mention of her at all. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say the same thing as Nat. By removing the name and simply saying "his wife", the meaning of the sentence doesn't change at all. The name is just that, a name. Faceless. A shadow void of substance. This actually comes up here a lot, which is why we have BLPNAME. The whole point of BLP policy is to protect the rights of the people we write about. Much of it is about ethics. Unless there is some overriding need to know, for example if the story wouldn't make sense without the name, we should simply omit it. Zaereth (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to know of the BLPNAME policy in order to help to protect those that have been collateral damage in these situations, in any small way possible. As you say, it is an ethical decision but equally as important to your standards, does not change the context of the information by changing the name to a reference. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 471: / Line 471: @@
 ::::Pam [[User:PamelaHarrLud|PamelaHarrLud]] ([[User talk:PamelaHarrLud|talk]]) 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
 :::::Excuse me, Nat Gertler.  Auto spell corrected. [[User:PamelaHarrLud|PamelaHarrLud]] ([[User talk:PamelaHarrLud|talk]]) 03:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
+::::I am fine with just using the "Ludwick's wife" as the identifier. My point was that we might not want to trim ''too much'' to avoid mention of her at all. [[User:Counterfeit Purses|Counterfeit Purses]] ([[User talk:Counterfeit Purses|talk]]) 03:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
 :::I was going to say the same thing as Nat. By removing the name and simply saying "his wife", the meaning of the sentence doesn't change at all. The name is just that, a name. Faceless. A shadow void of substance. This actually comes up here a lot, which is why we have BLPNAME. The whole point of BLP policy is to protect the rights of the people we write about. Much of it is about ethics. Unless there is some overriding need to know, for example if the story wouldn't make sense without the name, we should simply omit it. [[User:Zaereth|Zaereth]] ([[User talk:Zaereth|talk]]) 03:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
 ::::I am happy to know of the BLPNAME policy in order to help to protect those that have been collateral damage in these situations, in any small way possible.  As you say, it is an ethical decision but equally as important to your standards, does not change the context of the information by changing the name to a reference. [[User:PamelaHarrLud|PamelaHarrLud]] ([[User talk:PamelaHarrLud|talk]]) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards