Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

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

Dominik Feri

See [1] diff - edit contains libelous statement. Revdel warranted? Fermiboson (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Given that since this posting, sourced information that he was just convicted of rape, removing a claim that he was a rapist seems unneeded... and distinguishing between being a rapist whose conviction gets covered and being a "prominent rapist" seems a pointless splitting of hairs. It ain't libelous if it's true, and we accept conviction as sufficient indication of truth in the general case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

This was only court of first instance. In the Czech law, he is still considered innocent until final verdict. Better to wait until the trial(s) is over (which may take from months to years...). Pavlor (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Western tulku

We need more BLP-educated eyes on Western tulku. While there are many issues with this article, I am particularly concerned that the sources used to support allegations against Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo do not rise above the level of hearsay and should be removed. This article also appears to be racially biased. It is supposed to be about Western tulkus, but it appears to be more critical of white tulkus (and previous versions actually used the word "Caucasian"). Overall, I believe that after any BLP issues have been resolved, that it should be merged into Tulku. We do not have separate articles for Western guru, Western lama, Western shaman or Western swami; why should Western tulkus be treated outside their religious context when these other examples are not? Skyerise (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

One source being used that is highly questionable is an opinion piece in The Guardian, directing a question to the Dalai Lama. My understanding is that criticism of living persons must be sourced to news articles, not op-eds. Here's the source in question. It is clearly not a factual news article. Skyerise (talk) 23:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Hyde, Marina (24 September 2015). "Has Steven Seagal proved you can be a Buddhist and a mascot for the arms trade?". the Guardian. Retrieved 31 October 2023.

Just so others know, this section is forumshopping from an ongoing ANI discussion, in addition to the AfD Skyerise started on the above article that, thus far, isn't going their desired way. Multiple other editors do not agree with them about the claimed racial bias of this article existing, considering it is a legitimate topic of reliable source coverage on the inherent subject matter directly. Silverseren^C 00:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This post predates my awareness of that AN/I thread, which was moved to ANI from elsewhere without anyone informing me at the time it was so moved. The opposing editor basically said "bring it on" when I suggested it was a BLPN matter. That's hardly forum shopping. I also only nominated it for deletion because the other editor said to. Later they claimed the remarks were sarcastic, but he can hardly complain about my following his advice, especially if it was insincerely given. Skyerise (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• The Guardian has a clearly marked Opinion section (as most reputable sources do) and all of those article URLs begin with theguardian.com/commentisfree. The source is from their Lifestyle section. I don't see why we wouldn't treat it as factual reporting. Woodroar (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
  • It's Marina Hyde's regular column. As our article on the form says What differentiates a column from other forms of journalism is that it is a regular feature in a publication – written by the same writer or reporter and usually on the same subject area or theme each time – and that it typically, but not universally, contains the author's opinion or point of view. It seems pretty clear from reading the Marina Hyde column in question that it is Hyde's opinion rather than mere factual reporting: the tone is nothing like the Guardian's usual news reporting. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Cliff Eisen

Cliff Eisen has himself (he admits that user 67.81.21.189 is him in the revision of his article as of 00:43, 30 June 2022, and reverts the edit of admission 3 hours later) removed all information about his crime of sexual assault 5 times over 1.5 years. People were adding it back each time until about 1.5 years ago when the removal of this content at 03:35, 30 June 2022 went unnoticed. If I were to add this information again, he would surely just remove it as he has done 5 times in the space of 1.5 years.

Sexual assault claims are not alleged, they are detailed in this court case 'Miles v. New York University, 979 F. Supp. 248 (S.D.N.Y. 1997)' at this link: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/979/248/1447086/ The New York University was not found guilty, but Eisen was by proxy by looking at the line in the court case result above; "The simple facts are, as the university was forced to admit, that Professor Eisen was engaged in indefensible sexual conduct directed at plaintiff which caused her to suffer distress and ultimately forced her out of the doctoral program in her chosen field."

I am not an expert at wikipedia, and I'm not sure I feel comfortable adding this information back to his page unless I know that he isn't going to personally remove it yet again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingScotsman72 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't know any details about this person beyond what you have written but I would think:

1. WP:BLPPRIMARY advises against using primary sources, and explicitly says that when writing biographies of living people we "not use trial transcripts and other court records"
2. I'm not a legal expert, but I would think there was a substantial difference between someone's employer not contesting that the person did something, and that person actually being convicted of doing that thing. From WP:BLPCRIME: "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."

So unless there are secondary sources reporting on a conviction I would think not to include these allegations. Mgp28 (talk) 09:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

What Mgp28 said. First we dont use court transcripts. Second, the subject has not been convicted of a crime. Third, that is a motion by the defense for summary judgement to dismiss, it is not the result of the whole case. (Which from a brief googling, it appears she lost against the university.) Fourth, its a civil action. Fifth, even if the civil suit against the university was won, it still wouldnt pass the thresholds to be included in a BLP. In order to state that someone has either committed a crime, or lost a civil case with the lower thresholds (think O.J. here) you need to a)have sourcing that explicitly says that, b)have sourcing that passes our requirements.

Interestingly, there is at least one peer reviewed paper which talks about the legal implications of the denied motion (that the technically defined sex of the accuser is irrelevent: if the alleged male assaulter thought their victim was female, it doesnt matter if they hadnt undergone gender reassignment surgery and were still male). Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

There are enough RS out there to include this including a Harvard journal since it impacted his career.[2][3][4] Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I see that you've added the information back, thanks for that, but I am concerned that he will remove it again as soon as he notices it is back. I guess someone (maybe I should?) should put this article on their watchlist so it doesn't get removed for 1.5 years again? FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Tim Hayward (political scientist)

Tim Hayward (political scientist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tim Hayward (political scientist)#Academic review of Hayward's book about whether it's appropriate to include quotes from a review symposium about one of Hayward's books in the article. Whether or not to use material from the review has implications for POV/balance given that most of the rest of the article is about his controversial political views. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Brian Sims

I've noticed some contentious editing regarding the article on Brian Sims. (Redacted) Two examples of these edits include this and this. I do not want to get directly involved as, although I do not know Sims personally, I work for a company that Sims is on the board of, and I have already experienced some backlash for editing/creating articles on living politicians . Is there anyone here that can look into this more? The claim being made is that one political rival is making edits to "attack and defame". I'm not sure if this is accurate, but I thought it should be brought before other editors who do not have a connection to the subject of the article. It seemed bigger than a simple editing dispute, to me, since politicians may be involved. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 14:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked the IP, and revdelling the claimed outing until I hear otherwise. Also redacting and revdelling the above message for good measure. Let me know if you think I went too far on this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

And semied for a couple of weeks for good measure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Anne-Marie Kilday

Not long after Anne-Marie Kilday (a British academic administrator) was kept at AfD, her article was overloaded by "controversies" by an editor whose username suggests that they are a politically-motivated student, with much of this material sourced to references that have nothing to do with Kilday. I tried trimming it back (keeping brief summaries of some of this material without the excessive detailed backgrounders and with a more-neutral section title) but the reaction from the student editor was merely to revert twice and pile on even more junk. More eyes would be very welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Paweł Gaweł

Just a comment that almost every IP edit of Rafał Gaweł attempts to discredit him. Recent attempts include:

• saying that he pleaded guilty, contrary to the sources:
  • 19:11, 9 November 2023
  • 14:51, 9 November 2023
• categorising him as a criminal, despite his legal recognition in Norway as having been convicted for political reasons in an unfair trial
  • 07:06, 8 July 2023
  • 17:23, 31 July 2023

I don't know whether these need rev-deleting - they don't introduce new information, they just make claims contrary to the sources. Certainly the page could do with more BLP-sensitive watchers: the categorisations as a criminal remained in place for nearly four months. Short-term protection against IP editors would be unlikely to help: the BLP vandalism is done a few times per year; protection would have to be e.g. for a few years, by which time more editors might pay attention to the page. Boud (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Witchfynde

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Wfynde, Talk:Witchfynde § Wholly unsourced content, and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1136 § Persistent disruption at Witchfynde

• Witchfynde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A bit trivial, perhaps, compared to other disputes. But don't overlook the rationale for the section blankings on User talk:Wfynde. This one is about which person, presumably all still living, is what band member. We shouldn't overlook the complaint because of the account name and the block. The editor has a point, and unsourced content can be challenged and removed. Then there's the hijacking by single-purpose accounts named after claimed band members. Uncle G (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Rupperswil murder case

Rupperswil murder case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) isn't strictly speaking a biography, but I am not sure we want nearly unsourced articles on a notorious crime, where both perpetrator and relatives of the victims are still alive. Now the perpetrator was convicted and most of the content can probably be sourced from German-language media, however, so it's mostly a matter of adding citations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

David Hunt (gangster)

The David Hunt (gangster) article makes serious and repeated claims of serious criminal activity about a living person (see for example the secondary infobox for the "Hunt Crime Organisation"), yet he does not appear to have been convicted, or even been to court for any offence (there is a civil libel case covered in the article). Kathleen's bike (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time to do it myself, but the court documents and police reports need to be removed immediately, as well as the info associated with them. Those thing should be removed at first sight, but unfortunately I'm on my way out of the building right now. As for the rest of it, the vast number of other sources seem to suggest that this person may have reached the level of public figure for this sort of thing, in which case BLPCRIME wouldn't apply, although the rules on public figures would. Zaereth (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I've done an initial clean/cull. GiantSnowman 21:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Jake Wallis Simons

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

---

A new user is insisting in edit warring poorly sourced contentious material into Jake Wallis Simons. Other eyes would be appreciated. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Now been ECP'd. Much thanks SFR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I only did 3 months, as they're not directly related to the conflict. Hopefully things will have calmed enough by then where it's not a problem any longer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It was not poorly sourced. The article criticised was in The Jewish Chronicle and was linked to, as were the critical tweets by the Director of the Wiener Library and Alex Sobel MP. Guidance is that "Twitter can sometimes be a reliable source" and it clearly was in this case.

Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter Neverseek (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Jake Wallis Simons is the editor of the Jewish Chronicle. On the 10th NOVEMBER 2023 he published an article by Douglas Murray which received widespread condemnation. It was criticised on Twitter by significant figures in the Jewish Community including Dr Toby Simpson the director of the Wiener Libary and Alex Sobel MP.

I added this to Mr Wallis Simons Wikipedia page. It has been deleted and locked, despite citations to the remarks both by Dr ToBy Simpson and Alex Sobel. on the grounds that it was inadequarely cited yet Tweets can be accepted as citations Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neverseek (talk • contribs) 07:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Tweets can be sometimes acceptable as reliable sources. Supporting contentious material about living people is not one of those times. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you point to the regulations saying this? The guidance is that "A specific tweet may be useful as a self-published, primary source." and it was in exactly that way that it was used.

There was nothing contentious about the wikipedia article. Mr Wallis Simons cloase to publish very contentious material which was criticised on Twitter by significant figures in the Jewish community (Alex Sobel Mp and Dr Toby Simpson, director of the Wiener Library) Both chose twitter to self publish their response to Mr Wallis Simons' article. Neverseek (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS - Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This is not " sources of material about a living person" but comments by well respected people about the actions of that person. I am sure you understand the difference between the two. Neverseek (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Your interpretation of WP:BLP is not in line with the community's. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Concur. BLPSPS is usually interpreted very strictly. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Mr Wallis Simons published an article. That is a matter of fact. Two significant figures in the Jewish community commented on that article. That is also a matter of fact. They used Twitter as their medium. because it was the quickest way to comment on the article- which had also been circulated by Mr Wallis Simons on Twitter. Their condemnation of Mr Wallis Simons was powerful- and is clearly pertinent to his role as editor of the Jewish Chronicle. Neverseek (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if this gets covered in reliable secondary sources you cannot make any edits related to it because it relates to the Palestine/Israel conflict. The discussion about the applicability of the BLP policy is acceptable, but you cannot engage in any project space discussions related to the conflict. If you continue to engage in discussion related to the Palestine/Israel conflict you will be blocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I note that there is an almost tyrannical regime which prevents commenting on some of the most egregious behaviour by Mr Wallis Simons and others. He chose to publish an article which Alex Sobel a prominent figures in the Jewish Community described as "antisemitic filth." A group of Wikipedia editors have conspired to prevent this reaching the public. Neverseek (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You are now threatening to block me. Neverseek (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, because you're exhibiting Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_"get_the_point". At this point you're beating a dead horse. Nobody else has agreed with your position, and therefore you should desist. If you can't learn when to walk away then you have no future on Wikipedia. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:22, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I have no interest in "having a future" with a group of people who misrepresent their own rules and appear to hunt in packs to prevent items which are of considerable significance reaching the public domain Neverseek (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You talk about "the consensus of the community" and yet three people have commented. Two of them have misrepresented Wikipedia's onwn guidance and none has engaged with my substantive points. Neverseek (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's actually the WP:ECR restriction. The disruptive editing isn't good, but the only editing related to the Arab/Israel conflict allowed for non-ecr editors are edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but they were failing to desist after specifically being told about the ECP restriction. I think that qualifies as WP:IDHT. I honestly think a WP:NOTHERE indef would be appropriate at this point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I think you are a bully who refuses to engage with good faith arguments. Neverseek (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

I cited an article published By Mr Wallis Simons. I then quoted (with citations) two prominent figure in the Jewish Community who criticised it vehmently. Somehow you have decided that this is not only not pertinent to his biography but that I should be banned. Neverseek (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

This was about Jake Wallis Simons, editor of the Jewish Chronicle. He published an article ( a matter of fact). That article was described as "antisemitic filth" by a senior figure in the Jewish Community on his Twitter account. Also a matter of fact. Neither of those facts have anything whatsoever to do with the Israel/Palestine Conflict. (i'm not sure why you would describe it as the "Arab/Israel" conflict)? Neverseek (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy regarding the disputed content has been adequately explained. You don't have to agree with such policy, but if you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, you will have to comply with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

You either get it or you don't ( that's also a matter of fact)--there will otherwise be no end to this "discussion". KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not been adequately explained. I cited an article published by Mr Wallis Simons and cited (with direct quotations) criticism by MP Alex Sobel and the Director of the Wiener Library

A number of people have misrepresented Wikipedia policy. No-one has explained why an action by Mr Wallis Simons should be deleted from his Biography, Neverseek (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh, my dear Mr Neverseek, please drop the WP:AXE... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 22:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Richard Gartner

Two issues: the biography appears to have been largely written by COI accounts, including the subject, so the content really needs some shaking down. And the most recent edits have been defamatory, and need to be rev/deleted as WP:BLP violations. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Revdel'd, OS requested, watchlisted. The article definitely needs cleanup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, ScottishFinnishRadish. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:48EE:464F:CE18:8A14 (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Assistance please

Main page: Talk:Laurence D. Marks § Better sources needed

I am requesting assistance with Laurence D. Marks, which happens to be me. This is disclosed on my page, and has been for years. For reasons that I suspect are due to my putting a discussion WP:AfD on a page of his interest, User:Rublamb decided to start changing things on Laurence D. Marks.

Many of these edits were questionable and were reverted by User:StarryGrandma, but Rumblamd complained. What was extreme was that Rumblamd decided that it was appropriate to change my name to "Laurence Daniel Marks". I do not now and have never used the full version of my name. If Wikipedia does not have rules/suggestions about changing the name of living people without asking them first, it should. I invoked the exception in WP:COISELF, in particular:

An exception to editing an article about yourself or someone you know is made if the article contains defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly.

And reverted the edits. While Rumblamd did not corrupt my name a second time, he proceeded to make more questionable edits. For instance he reverted an addition of an official image of my birth certificate which I provided using the conventional "Request for edit" and was performed by User:Spintendo. Birth certificates, which in the UK are searchable, are not reliable? Further Rumblamd created a claim at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Laurence D. Marks self-edits with some selective information.

He then decided to call me "staff", which all faculty members consider somewhere between disagreable and insulting. I reverted that using the same exception, but I am now being attacked by User:Theroadislong with the accusation "subject appears to be incapable of NOT editing this page"

• Beyond invoking the exception, I have not been editing the page
• I am not the main editor of this page, and never have been

I am requesting some assistance in defense. There must be some protection for living people when key points such as their name and position are being changed without asking them for input. Living people must have rights too. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• The fact that you find it disagreeable to be referred to as staff does not come close to meeting the COISELF threshold of "defamation or a serious error that needs to be corrected quickly". Wikipedia editors tend to take a very strict view of COI editing, and I would recommend against relying on that exception outside of very clear cases. You are much more likely to have people agree to change the wording here by discussing on the talkpage.
  As for the birth certificate, Rublamb explained in their edit summary why they removed it: because WP:BLPPRIMARY does not permit the use of public records in this way. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 00:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Let's not let this get out of hand and sprawl across two noticeboards (here and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Laurence D. Marks self-edits) as well as the active talk page discussion. Uncle G (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Matt Taylor (scientist)

Four years ago, I removed the last mention[5] of "shirtstorm" in the article on the British astrophycist Matt Taylor, who is otherwise notable for landing a spacecraft on a comet. My reasoning was that, other than causing him a great deal of personal embarrassment, the event appears to have no significance in his life nor has it has any effect on his career. Other than an occasional revert of attempt to readd the story, the article has been stable without it. On November 8, User:Spiralwidget added a reference to the incident (and a string of sources)[6] and suggested in the talk that we take the dispute here if needed. That's what I'm doing. My view remains that this is just a very public humiliation that he was forced to endure but which should not be enshrined here.Thomas B (talk) 12:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

There are 57 hits on Google News for Matt Taylor + (rosetta OR physicist). Only ten are not about the "shirtstorm". It breaches DUE to entirely remove all mention of this - that's censorship. WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't say to strip all negative content out, as the furore was due to his own choice of attire and the mention was cut right down: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic". We should restore a very brief neutrally worded mention. Fences&Windows 21:11, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that a brief mention is probably due, but it should be kept short as to not overwhelm the rest of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I would be interested in suggestions for what this "brief mention" should say.Thomas B (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Based on the version you removed, I would suggested something like: Taylor was the subject of controversy over artwork on a shirt he wore during a 2014 ESA Press conference regarding the Rosetta craft, which some perceived to be sexist. Taylor subsequently apologised. No need to have anything more than that really. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Probably the ... eleven(!?) ... sources are unnecessary, but the text introduced by Spiralwidget here does not look unreasonable to me. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

SSSniperWolf

Could someone please hide these unsourced? And also block the IP Trade (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Fan Xiaoqin

• Fan Xiaoqin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's a very complex and sensitive situation here. I'll copy my thoughts from the DYK nom:

When reading the article, I noticed that buried in the middle was a mention of the subject being intellectually disabled. This is a hell of a thing to bury in the middle of an article, and many terms for intellectual and developmental disabilities translate poorly, so I checked the source to see if this was a mistranslation. My Chinese is very weak, but I was able to confirm that no, that's the correct translation/implication of the statement. The source specifically mentioned Fan being diagnosed with "intellectual disability level 2", which doesn't translate directly to English. Checking some Chinese sources, with again significant caveats, this seemingly translates to a severe intellectual disability -- corresponding to someone with very limited communication and self-care abilities who's unlikely to understand the consequences of being internet-famous. Descriptions of him in both Chinese and English sources agree that he has a very restricted vocabularly and doesn't seem to comprehend why people were paying attention to him.

Looking at the longread article in Sixth Tone, there's a lot of detail on the context under which Fan became internet-famous. There's a fairly consistent narrative that the fame was mostly his father's doing. This is agreed with by The Paper and at least alluded to by a number of other sources I could access. In particular, the "begging" that the article focuses on is clearly not something Fan understood the implications of. This article really doesn't get any of this across -- like I said, the mention of intellectual disability is very buried. While there are good sources cited in the article, they're poorly utilized.

The number of standalone biographical articles on intellectually disabled subjects is limited. I can't think of a single article that's had to have an "is this article hiding that the subject is severely intellectually disabled?" conversation, and I really can't think of one where that's combined with a high language barrier. It definitely needs, at bare minimum, serious revisions. I'm not convinced there's a good BLP case for this article existing -- it's a very sad and complex story about exploitation, for which the coverage is fairly limited.

Any thoughts are valued. The subject is a young teenager who was famous as a child, the subject seemingly has severe cognitive impairments, and many of the sources are in a language extremely dissimilar to English. One of those alone would make things difficult. Vaticidalprophet 13:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Author of the article here; thanks for giving such a comprehensive overview of the situation. I'm way out of my depth here and I haven't handled something this complex before, but I'll gladly implement any of your suggestions. I'm still planning on getting it on DYK. Bremps... 16:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the article may need to be deleted and certainly not put on DYK. The article subject is a child with low cognitive ability who has been exploited by his family and an entertainment company. WP:AVOIDVICTIM says "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." BLP also says "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures." Fences&Windows 20:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of actual notability (which I haven't analysed), I would be very uncomfortable with this being showcased on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the sources, there seems to be enough there to pass notability (I've seen AfD Keep results with much less), but I certainly agree that this doesn't belong on the mainpage. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

BLP is complicated. I've AfDed subjects with a reasonable case for notability on BLP privacy/sensitivity grounds and had delete closes. I'm contemplating whether that'd happen here. There's a big burst of international coverage during his peak of fame for "this boy looks like Jack Ma" (most of that is not in the article, because it's human interest stuff with little additional encyclopedic information), but children with standalone articles should really have sustained coverage. Then there's the recent stuff, like the Sixth Tone piece. Some of this is very good, but I'm not sure yet if it makes the case that he should have a standalone article, given the very particular connotation of "exploitation-driven 15 minutes of fame". Even without everything else here it's tricky to write standalones on very young subjects, given the difficulty with being confident about long-term coverage. Vaticidalprophet 15:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What would "special care" entail? I purposefully didn't emphasize his disabilites as it could be construed by some people to be negative information about him. Bremps... 21:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Disability studies is, in an interdisciplinary sense, an interest of mine. Something that comes up a lot is the issue that many people believe downplaying or ignoring disability is in some way necessary or important to respect disabled people, when it's very often a disservice or actively harmful. It's tricky, because people do things with the best of intentions, and the unique structure of disability advocacy (that it's so disproportionately done by abled people who may have different ideas to disabled people) means a lot of people end up with the received wisdom that downplaying disability is the (politically, morally) correct thing to do. It's not, and we can see exactly why here. Disability is not an inherently negative characteristic, but downplaying that a subject is severely disabled and undergoing exploitation he doesn't understand is. Vaticidalprophet 03:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I see what you mean now. Thanks for the tip. Bremps... 04:34, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Anna Oleksandrivna Katrulina

After posting the article here, an attempt was made to publish it on the Russian-language Wikipedia. As a result, the author of the article was subjected to harassment, and the article became the target of attacks by citizens of the Russian Federation. The likely reason is the author's nationality (Ukrainian) and references in the article to sources from the federal authorities of the United States and Ukraine. There has been a shift in the focus of the discussion from constructive discourse to aggressive actions by users on the Russian Wikipedia. The persecution by them has also continued on other language versions of Wikipedia where the article was posted. Administrators of the Russian Wikipedia violate neutrality rules. There is an evident conflict of interest. The basis for the article is information from a scientific database, the texts of which are distributed under the CC0 license. It has been supplemented with references to reliable sources such as the United States Agency for International Development, universities, scientific journals, libraries, and media projects. More information is available in the article's discussion. I request that measures be taken to protect the article from attacks by Russian-speaking Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darya2023 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The English-language Wikipedia has no control over what goes on in the Russian-language one, and if there are specific issues with contributor behaviour here on English-language Wikipedia, they should probably be reported, with evidence directly supported by diffs. at WP:ANI. I would note however that your own behaviour in regard to the current AfD discussion [7] is likely to be taken into consideration, and would accordingly suggest that you let the discussion take its course. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

If my actions have caused misunderstandings, I am willing to collaborate and make necessary adjustments to improve the article and comply with Wikipedia's rules. Darya2023 (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Those who know me can confirm that I am among those administrators who oppose Kremlin propaganda on Russian-language Wikipedia. You made up a story about evil Russians out of nothing. I was only considering a request for recovery at all, and the article had been deleted several times before. Given your behavior in that discussion and your goals on Wikipedia (to promote one single persona in all languages), I blocked you. And anyway, don't you find it odd that everyone is against you? Khinkali (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I acknowledge your role in maintaining order on Wikipedia, and I understand that your actions are based on a commitment to uphold community standards. However, I would like to clarify that my goal was to provide information about innovative scientific discoveries, her social, and creative achievements based on publicly available information. I do not pursue political or propagandistic objectives. It is not me who pursues the author of the articles outside the Russian Wikipedia; it is you. You silently observed how your compatriots turned the discussion into harassment, after which you made your decision to delete, blocked, and then came here.

For future reference, the generalization of "everyone is against you" can be perceived as manipulation in a specific context to create a negative perception. This form of exaggeration ignores variations and creates an impression that the entire world or community is opposed to a specific person or idea. In reality, there are usually multiple perspectives and relationships, and overly simplified generalizations can distort the true picture. Darya2023 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Darya2023, you would be well advised to read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and then concentrating your efforts on demonstrating at the AfD discussion, through citation of appropriate sources providing the necessary in-depth coverage, that Katrulina meets the necessary criteria. That is the only factor that will be taken into consideration - we aren't interested in what went on elsewhere. We aren't interested in your opinions regarding 'propaganda', or in claims of 'harassment'. And nor are we interested in your personal endorsements of the value of Katrulina's work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I have doubts about whether your level of comprehension ability allows you to analyze and comprehend information, identify key ideas and catch generalizations in texts. Do you have any evidence that you have this ability at a high level or at least at a sufficient level? Darya2023 (talk) 11:02, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, the assessment of source reliability is based on the principles of neutrality, credibility, and verifiability of information. Are you suggesting that I should stop substantiating information with well-established reliable sources that confirm its authenticity? What's the purpose? To further impose your subjective point of view? And to support discrimination? Regardless of that, Katrulina will continue making scientific discoveries, learning, and changing the world. However, your editorial work could easily be replaced by AI, which would be more objective and reliable (without conflicts of interest). Think about what you will do and whom you will appeal to when that moment comes. Who will be interested in your point of view in such a case. Darya2023 (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Massad (protected article)

The section "On the Palestinian Authority and Hamas" cites editorial summary as fact, using tendentious and potentially libelous language not present in original source rather than quoting it directly. Specifically, the cited Jerusalem Post article characterizes a rote description of shock and awe as "praise", a misleading paraphrase which is not supported by the original text. The link to the Jerusalem Post summary should be replaced with a link to the original article on Electronic Intifada, and the tendentious paraphrase should be replaced with direct quotes.

Note that the user who added the unreliable Jerusalem Post citation has already been flagged repeatedly for NPOV violations, so correcting this would not be unprecedented.

Note also that Electronic Intifada has already described the Jerusalem Post summary in question as being related to a coordinated campaign by a former IDF spokesperson trying to convince Columbia University to revoke Massad's tenure. The ongoing conflict surrounding this campaign is noteworthy as it mirrors the previous campaign described under the Columbia Unbecoming section. However, any secondary sources (i.e. sources other than the original Electronic Intifada editorial written by Massad) should be carefully screened for NPOV, which would disqualify both the Jerusalem Post summary and the Electronic Intifada article about the campaign.

Note finally that I deliberately logged out before posting this comment because I don't trust the sorts of people who post content in violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies. (Obviously, logging out before posting this means that I cannot subscribe to this page for updates.) — 68.199.153.120 (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Venkataraman Thangadurai

I am not really convinced this gentleman meets all of the criteria for a WP living biography - Venkataraman Thangadurai.

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

My judgment is based on a detailed review of:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability

I did look at his research and contributions - I looked at the history and creation record for the article - being objective, I am not sure this article should be on Wikipedia - his work, awards and publication history is not that different than many hundreds of similar researchers.

The FRSC award is common - I do not know this man, though I am involved in a research environment - more in the biomedical area -- his CV is not that different that many of my own peers.

As a newer WP editor - I was presented with this article to edit - and as I started to review the item - I could not see why this was ever approved -

I think this article should be removed. The original author is also not an established author on WP so it does look a little self-promoting IMHO - BeingObjective (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Repeated anon vandalism

195.224.181.210 continues to vandalize Garron Noone, despite being reverted each time. They have made no other edits and are clearly WP:NOTHERE. -- Slugger O'Toole (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[[

Slugger O'Toole, I have pageblocked that IP from Garron Noone for six months. Please let me know if disruption comes from somewhere else. Cullen328 (talk) 09:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)