Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive324

Sholam Weiss
Hello,

My name is Hershy Marton and I'm writing this message on behalf of my uncle, Sholam Weiss, who has a Wikipedia article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss. A great deal of the information on the article is inaccurate and libelous, with much of its sourcing traced back to "anonymous officials" interviewed by long-retired journalists. Given that there is a history of individuals working to slander my uncle, I believe that some of them may be involved in this Wikipedia editing. Unfortunately, despite my efforts to remove false information, it has been repeatedly added back and at this point I feel it is out of my control. In addition, I do not believe my uncle is notable enough for his own page given that he is not significant for any reason other than his crime several decades ago. In fact, none of the others involved in the crime (which includes individuals with significantly more direct and sustained involvement than my uncle) have their own page. Instead, I believe that the information about my uncle contained on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Heritage_Life_Insurance_Company) is sufficient, although I do have more minor problems with its accuracy as well.

Therefore, I am petitioning for you to remove the article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss. Thank you very much for reading my appeal and please do not hesitate to respond if you have any questions for me! I really appreciate your efforts to help monitor a website that has helped so many people learn about the world.

Sincerely, Hershy Marton — Preceding unsigned comment added by HershyMarton (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)  — HershyMarton (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment See this COI Noticeboard discussion. The article in question has been semiprotected for two months due to IP vandalism and content blanking, which evidently was coordinated and/or carried out by the above account.Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I don't see any justification for removing this article. The subject meets our requirements for notability several times over: from the scope of the crime he was convicted of, for the unprecedented severity of his sentence, and then again recently for the controversial pardon he received from President Trump. Of course the article can be edited and improved, but I don't think it can be deleted. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC) @
 * MelanieN I really don't know how this Wikipedia really works, if you believe this page cannot be scrapped, how can I make sure non biased editors are vandalizing my uncle's page? There are a number of edits done by some users that keep removing many facts, links to news articles etc. and keep adding opinions rather than facts for the sole purpose to defame my uncle Mr. Weiss. most of my chat room friends that have edited this page for many months with 100% true facts have been locked out of wiki. I believe this page should be scrapped and deleted. Information regarding the crime along with the co defendants are included in the National Heritage page and non of the co defendants have individual pages. that page also notes about the clemency. Communicating via wiki is hard on me, I don't really know how it works, I'd be happy to discuss each defamation/slanderous issue on the page via email or phone. Thank you for your response. HershyMarton (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * By way of background: Sholam Weiss was the central figure in the looting of National Heritage Life Insurance Company, helping to drain it of $450 million, for which he was indicted on multiple felony counts and put on trial in 1999. While the jury was deliberating, he fled overseas, and he was sentenced in absentia to 845 years in prison, the longest white collar sentence in U.S. history. After a year on the run, during which he lived in splendor utilizing hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the company he looted, Weiss was extradited to the U.S. He has been the subject of a campaign to free him. On Jan. 19 he was one of the persons whose sentences were commuted by President Trump. The commutation was criticized by The Washington Post.


 * I think that's a fair summary. These details are taken from the article, which is sourced in large measure to The New York Times, the Best's Review insurance newsletter and to the Orlando Sentinel. If Mr. Marton or his uncle have a problem with those publications, the solution is to contact the publications, not to vandalize the Wikipedia article citing them, blanking content and POV pushing, as has best the article since it was created in 2006. It required a complete rewrite because it was a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Coretheapple, this is untrue, first the Washington post opinion is just an opinion and shouldn't be on this page. Second, If you read the best review in grave detail you will see that your statement is simply untrue. Mr. Weiss was never convicted for looting any money. he was convicted for laundering. Only his co defendants were convicted for looting, All the talk that relates to him as causing losses was because of the restitution imposed upon him before counting the mortgages he owned under the south star corp which was given to NHLC with a bond and only later sold and satisfied the restitution. This article is filled with defamation. HershyMarton (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Also worth to note that the best review magazine is the best source to be used because it was a thorough article by an insurance journal from September 2000, also the satisfaction of restitution from 2016 only proves why my uncle has proclaimed his innocents against theft charges which he was after all never convicted for. HershyMarton (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The authorities said they believed that he had had access to as much as half the $450 million he helped steal and used some of it in flight.
 * Again, your argument is with The New York Times. This is from one of the articles used to source Sholam Weiss:

Officials have begun extradition proceedings to return Mr. Weiss to the United States.

In a series of extremely complex mortgage and stock frauds, Mr. Weiss and several others looted the National Heritage Life Insurance Company in 1993 and 1994, leading to what the federal authorities called the largest insurance company failure caused by a criminal act in United States history. The company, which largely sold annuities to retirees, is chartered in Delaware, but the majority of its mostly elderly policy holders live in Florida.
 * -- Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Coretheapple There are many other news articles that you can source here, as I stated in this case the most reliable would be the Best Review because they cover insurance financial journalism. there are many facts in this case that this page is just misrepresenting. HershyMarton (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree as well that there isn't much chance this article will be deleted. Now the article might get some attention and improvement as a consequence of the post here.  But not deletion...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI just before I became aware of the existence of both Weiss and this article, one very long week ago, this noticeboard was utilized for that precise purpose. See . After decided that life was too short to babysit this article, I stumbled onto it and, again, sent up a warning flare on AN, COIN and here.  Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Nomoskedasticity I would love to disagree especially because there are too many slanderous points but if that's the case, I'll be happy if we settle by not slandering my uncle with facts that are not true and not post useless stupid opinions, rather only facts. Also, many facts are simply written in a way to deceive and make him look worse for no reason. For example, The paid in full restitution was taken off numerous times by User:Coretheapple just to make my uncle look worse, that screams bias against my uncle. HershyMarton (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The article states that restitution was paid. I added that line. Please do not misrepresent the content of the article and other editors' behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Coretheapple I have seen your edits, you first took it off from everywhere, you took it off from the box ontop, It looks like you babysit this article to defame my uncle. You literally rewrote the entire article to make it look worse on my uncle. Im not trying to get into a fight with you here. If there is any way we can get on the phone or discuss this article over the phone, I am open to it.

I still think that according to wiki policies I read earlier, fits the criteria for the page to be scrapped. HershyMarton (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I still think that if you intend to edit Wikipedia, you need to stop misrepresenting what has happened in your uncle's article and stop the relentless personal attacks. If you continue to waste people's time with attacks and nonsense, you risk being blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You said I still think that according to wiki policies I read earlier, fits the criteria for the page to be scrapped. Unfortunately none of the editors above agree with you. I also do not think it should be deleted. Please take it easy on the personal attacks as well, as these are not acceptable. Possibly (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * User:HershyMarton and User:Coretheapple, this kind of discussion - the relative value of sources, etc. - should be done at the article talk page, not at this board. Please take it there. Mr. Marton, some suggestions: take your points one at a time and create a discussion section for that one point. Discuss calmly without throwing around words like “defamation” and “slanderous” and “biased”, and focus on a fact that you dispute. For example, you say he was not convicted for looting any money; that can be proven or disproven. BTW I don’t think you will get very far with a claim that an article in Best’s Review is more reliable than an article in The New York Times. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I must say, I'm completely perplexed by the extent of these whitewashing editors for Sholam Weiss. This has been going on for years, and people are still interested in whitewashing him, against what every reliable source has reported on the subject? Absolutely incredible. At any rate,, if you have a problem with what you see as slander, you can try to place suggested edits on the talk page. Requests that are POV-pushing however, are not going to succeed. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 01:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 A deletion is also unlikely to succeed, but you can try asking an uninvolved editor to place an afd tag on it, if you think it actually does fit under the deletion policy. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to whitewash your uncles crimes is unlikely to succeed, given the quality of the sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Josh Grelle
is repeatedly changing the pronouns used for Grelle to he/him in violation of MOS:GENDERID, as Grelle's most recent self-designated pronouns are they/them. (Their pronouns used to be stated in their Twitter bio, as can be seen next to this archived tweet, but they removed the pronouns from their Twitter bio at some point in January (current bio). However, in the absence of any further updates or statements from Grelle, they/them pronouns are Grelle's most recent self-designated pronouns.) I've informed FixerOfAllThings that Grelle uses they/them pronouns (I also added the appropriate banner to the talk page) and warned them about edit warring, but this does not seem to have deterred them. As I've already reverted them three times, I'm reporting them here instead of continuing to revert them as recommended by WP:3RRBLP. GreenComputer (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the best source for "they/them" (which doesn't strike me as a gender pronoun at all, it's just a plural pronoun) then I wouldn't call that definitive. All I see in that archived Twitter page is a one-line header that doesn't even make sense if they/them was changed to "he" or "she". Sorry, I don't see anything giving a definite context that Grelle self-refers as a plural pronoun. It isn't even clear that Grelle has ever made any point at all about gender identity.
 * Furthermore, MOS:GENDERID explicitly refers to the guideline WP:SURPRISE, which recommends against surprising the reader with an unexpected and grammatically incorrect pronoun in the lead paragraph.
 * I don't see that pronouns are necessary in such a short article that consists of just a handful of sentences. I removed the pronouns. They aren't needed. If Grelle no longer self-refers with any pronouns at all, then perhaps neither should we. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh
Hi. A user is adding that Israel is behind this guys killing. At this moment, this is alleged and Israel has not admitted responsibility. When I asked the user to provide a source he provided a youtube video from PM Netanyahu's YT account discussing this guy a few years back. I explained onmy talk page that this source, while reliable is not independnet. Can soemone revert as I do not want to accidentally go over three reverts? Thanks Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , the repeated addition of "without evidence" is not in compliance with MOS:LEAD and WP:CCPOL. Its use in the lead is editorializing and was correct in removing it. That Iran has accused Israel is very well-sourced in the article body and there is no source presented in the body that claims that Iran has no basis for making the accusation.  Please do not continue edit warring to add this. Thank you in advance.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Jay Mathews
I am the subject of the article. I don't know who posted it 14 years ago but I am grateful. I just posted on the talk section of the article a request for specific updating and small corrections. I tried to create an account but could not figure out how to do that.--jay mathews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.53.206 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, on behalf of whoever created it, you're welcome. Thank you very much for asking here and on the talk page rather than trying to edit the article yourself, per our WP:Conflict of interest policy. As someone who works in journalism, I'm sure you understand the need for reliable sources, and that's what we need at Wikipedia as well before we can make any changes or updates. We only summarize what has already been written. As the subject of the article, I'm sure you are probably the most familiar with what has been written about you, so here's what I suggest: read our WP:Reliable source policy and then gather up as many sources as you can and post them at the talk page of the article. Using only the info found in those sources, make another list of things you'd like changed or added. (It's unlikely sourced info will be deleted without good reason, but we can always change "he does this..." to "he did this, now does that..." or some such thing.) Just keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article and not a facebook page. It's a lot like journalism only a lot more formal. Zaereth (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

GameStop short squeeze / Janet Yellen
A user has inserted some content at GameStop short squeeze that has BLP implications for Janet Yellen. I have removed the content on the grounds on BLP and other grounds, specifically that (1) it is not directly supported by the cited sources; (2) some of the sourcing proposed is subpar or speculative; and (3) the content is off-topic and undue weight in the article. Some users have been pushing to re-insert the challenged content. It would be helpful to get some additional eyeballs on this. See Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze. Neutralitytalk 17:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that it's speculative material about a BLP which doesn't belong in the article. Not sure if it's quite a BLP violation, more that it's irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that the "reporters raising concern" text was, at best, poorly worded. The subject may be worth including, possibly. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the dispute, along with and a few other. In summary, there has been widespread media coverage suggesting that (my wording:) Janet Yellen may be in a position of conflict of interest with respect to Citadel LLC (see below for the sources). It has even made its way to the White House press briefing (at 18:25). The language that I have suggested to summarize the issue is this. But I don't really care for that particular phrasing. The issue is that—in opposition to the near-unanimous talk page consensus— refuses to let any of us add anything at all that would summarize in any way, shape or form, the current coverage of Janet Yellen's links with Citadel. I have asked Neutrality if he could suggest a phrasing that would suit his interpretation of the policies, but he refuses to do so. This is a critical problem for an ITN article with 20'000+ page views per day.

Sources: --JBchrch (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Main Reuters article
 * Second Reuters article
 * Washington Post
 * Fox News
 * Slate
 * Bloomberg
 * Yahoo!News
 * The Federalist


 * Let's be real clear here:


 * Main Reuters article - sole mention of "conflict of interest" is the following statement: "Richard Painter, a former top ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush, said many Treasury secretaries had a great deal more entanglements that would raise conflict of interest concerns than Yellen."
 * Second Reuters article - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
 * Washington Post - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
 * Fox News - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere. Fox News is also a yellow-flagged source for political matters.
 * Slate - Commentary piece. Does not say that Yellen has a conflict of interest. References "conflict of interest" in the context of a vague statement that "no one can know for sure what's in a decision-maker's heart as they make decisions."
 * Bloomberg - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
 * Yahoo!News - actually a Reuters article. Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
 * The Federalist - not a reliable source; right-wing commentary piece


 * No RS suggests that Yellen has taken any step relating to GameStop and Citadel specifically. We do not put speculative BLP-implicating innuendo into an encyclopedia article, especially not when it is undue weight, not supported by the sources, or off-topic. Neutralitytalk 21:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Skimmed a couple of those sources, concur with the above assessment. This looks like source misrepresentation / WP:REFBOMBING. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * So I am going to ask you once again : what is the edit that you suggest? I am not insisting on the word "conflict of interest", as I have stated in my first comment here., please note that opposes all additions RE Yellen/Citadel, not just the ones mentioning "conflict of interest". I am forced to engage in borderline copyright infringement here, but let's go ahead and read what the sources say :
 * Reuters 1: A sticking point for her to clear, though, may be $700,000 in speaking fees she accepted from Citadel, as recently as last fall. Yellen has pledged not to involve herself in an official capacity in matters involving the firm without first seeking a written waiver from Treasury ethics officials.
 * [...]
 * Yellen filed an ethics agreement here with the Office of Government Ethics in December saying she would "seek written authorization to participate personally and substantially in any particular matter" related to any companies that paid her speaking fees prior to joining President Joe Biden's administration - for a year after her last speech to each firm.
 * Reuters 2: Yellen sought and received permission from ethics lawyers before calling the meeting, according to a document seen by Reuters, along with clearance to engage on wide-ranging issues in the financial services industry.
 * Yellen's decision to seek the waiver followed a report here by Reuters that because of speaking fees she was paid by a key player in the GameStop saga, hedge fund Citadel LLC, she may need permission to deal with matters involving the firm.
 * [...]
 * Yellen earned more than $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel, as recently as last fall. In an ethics agreement here, she pledged not to involve herself in specific matters involving the firm - as well as major banks including Citigroup, Barclays and Goldman Sachs - without first seeking authorization.
 * Washington Post: White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki dismissed questions over whether Yellen should recuse herself from the matter over speaking fees she received from Citadel. The hedge fund’s owner has another company, Citadel Securities, which has a financial relationship with Robinhood, a retail broker which was criticized after it recently restricted trading in the shares of GameStock and other companies that were promoted by the Reddit message board.
 * Bloomberg: Yellen has requested an ethics waiver to hold the meeting, a Treasury spokeswoman said, confirming a Reuters report. Yellen received more than $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel, the financial empire run by billionaire Ken Griffin. Griffin runs a hedge fund and controls Citadel Securities, a giant market making firm that executes trades for Robinhood’s customers.
 * --JBchrch (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The ethics concern/issue can be mentioned due to those sources as they are WP:DUE. You should call for an WP:RfC on the article talk page in terms of a proposed phrasing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this suggestion.--JBchrch (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For all purposes, this should be read in the context of BLPCRIME and in the context of NOT#NEWS: the implication of the connection between Yellen and Citadel appears to assigning potentially criminal liability on Yellen from these sources, which we cannot do absent an actual conviction or arrest for that conviction. It may be important as lawyers untangle if there is any liability here, and if it is found that the Yellen/Citadel connection has legal ramifications, then and only then can it be added. Everything else is wide speculation. --M asem (t) 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of Treasury, is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And even with public figures, we don't attempt to state they committed any crime unless there are serious allegations towards that in play (eg speaking towards Trump's second impeachment ahead of anything would be reasonable since lawmakers were moving to take action). Here, this is analysts speculation on what might come down. --M asem (t) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No one's arguing that this is a crime. The sources established she received over 800,000 in speaking fees from Capital Citadel and she had to get an ethics waiver to even meet about the Gamestop situation. Those two things should be mentioned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Israel Finkelstein
I started a topic at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents but no admin has answered my question: does calling Israel Finkelstein "insane" and "incompetent" at Talk:David amount to a WP:BLP violation? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

You have just edited WP:BLPN and Israel Finkelstein (separately). May I ask you to chime in? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Given the context, colourful or hyperbolic opinions about a source's reliability in discussions should be given leeway if they are not defamatory per WP:BLPTALK and opinions are not defamatory. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * How is calling a very famous (in his field) professor emeritus insane/incompetent not defamatory? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Or do you mean such opinions are relevant to content choice? Doug Weller  talk 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both. Opinions are not defamatory. Dismissive opinions about the professor's analysis or expertise are relevant to content choice in assigning weight. Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The comments would certainly not be defamatory in a legal sense. Based on the ANI thread, the comments also appear to not be about Finklestein himself but instead about his analysis/reasoning. I don't think the language is helpful, but Tgeorgescu making allegations against the other editor without evidence is more concerning to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said there, I no longer pursued the paid editing accusation after they have denied making paid edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs
The entire article is rife with biased opinions and material from biased sources presented as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.160.37 (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Examples? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sherlie Matthews
how do I delete my account. I am the author, Sherlie Matthews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praterwhip (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wan Junaidi
Just noticed the section on Wan Junaidi...GrahamHardy (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the note as there is nothing libelous about the claim. There also do not seem to be reliability issues with the source, Malay Mail, and it seems to simply be repeating the article subject's own words. I did merge the content into the previous section on his political career as per WP:CSECTION. Since that sentence is actually the only prose with a cited source at all in the article, I also added a need citations tag to the top and removed some of the unsourced content that seemed more promotional. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Constant removal of information
Chris Janson is once again subject to anonymous or new editors removing uncontroversial BLP content as seen in this diff.

This has been a long-standing issue with this article in particular. See the following:


 * 2018 edit that gutted the article, including removal of the Holly Williams collabs; all by WP:SPA account


 * These edits by also removed the Holly Williams information in 2015

I used to write for a country music blog, and some inside information from my former editor implies that these edits are being made by Janson's wife. I have also had past correspondence with at least one of his lawyers who was looking to get the info removed, but one of them backed down after I pointed out the appropriate Wikipedia policies. (Sadly I did not save said correspondence.) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Emma Barnett
Please can someone check recent edits to Emma Barnett, as I'm on mobile and unable to devote the necessary time to doing so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Revdelled and protected for a week. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not done. You revdelled something that was changed after I posted here, but left the uncited claims about her supposed awareness of her father's criminality. I've now removed that. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a mind reader. Use Oversight next time. Fences  &amp;  Windows  14:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Luigi De Falco


The page does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject & seems to have been self-published|bio|February 2021 Mobydick98 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Both Luigi De Falco and H2biz scream non-notable and undisclosed paid editing to me. Woodroar (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose the deletion of this page. It's clearly a self published résumé. Also, no page in Italian of this "notable" Italian guy.Can you please assist me with this? Mobydick98 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Gina Din
Gina Din

A PR person is Spamvertising on Wikepedia. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterflyMon (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This does not appear to be spam, but a biography of a notable person. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin Oduor-Otieno
Martin Oduor-Otieno

Businessman Spamvertising on Wikepedia. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterflyMon (talk • contribs) 12:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This does not appear to be spam, but the biography of a notable person. It was created by en editor in good standing who has been active here for thirteen years, and with whom you have not attempted to communicate. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jane Fraser (executive)
Hi, my name is Jennifer and I work for Jane Fraser. Jane’s current photo was taken as a screenshot and therefore renders as poor quality. I’m including her headshot here as an original, higher-quality file so that it can be updated. Additionally, the reference to her being one of only two women on Citi’s Operating Committee is inaccurate, as the source citation is several years outdated. This Reuters article offers more recent coverage on Citi’s leadership structure, which includes Jane among 5 women on the current Executive Management Team. Can someone please review these suggestions? LowneyJen (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have made the requested changes, though bear in mind I don't really know anything about Jane Fraser so I am trusting what you say is correct. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your quick attention to this. I do want to point out that it's not accurate to say she leads the Operations team. It would be correct to simply say that she has served as President of Citi since 2019 and will be taking over the role of Chief Executive Officer in 2021. Thank you again for your consideration. LowneyJen (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Okay, the headline does say "Citi's incoming CEO Fraser forms new operating team to build leadership accountability", and I assume if somebody is forming a team, it implies they lead it. Incidentally, you may be able to get more help asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Stanko Subotić
This BLP desperately needs a neutral editor who can read the sources and who can write proper English. A few recent edits alerted me to it; the article violated all kinds of neutrality standards (obvious even to someone who can't read the sources), and this IP editor tried to swing it the opposite way. I cut some of the most blatantly non-neutral content (where sourcing was questionable, and the writing was poor), but this article needs more help than I can give it. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW I have a strong suspicion that much of this article was written by a paid editor: look at the contributions of User:Dmelow, and their deleted contributions. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Tripathy
Besieged by several accounts posting poorly sourced fancruft. Could use more eyes, and perhaps page protection if this continues. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration
Hi, BLP articles are not really my turf so I am not exceedingly familiar with BLP policies. However, I recently got involved with the article on the Great Barrington Declaration and noticed that some pretty strongly worded things were said about its authors in the Authors section. I was wondering if more experienced editors would like to take a look.--JBchrch (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the people familiar with BLP issues, thats not strongly worded (take a look at some past discussions here, or anything involving Trump). It looks to be well sourced, with a mixture of newspapers like the guardian & journals like BMJ. It concentrates on what their positions are, and for the most part gives equal, if not more space to their own self-declared views. To be honest it looks more as if someone padded it out to just include more information about the authors. The majority of it could be included in the other sections on criticism (if it hasnt already). But you would be left then with just a bare bones description of the three authors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also don't see anything seriously concerning with the section. It may be able to be improved, but that would require going through the refs and pointing out what phrases or sentences need improvement. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be an issue with WP:SYNTH, because there is commentary on the GBD authors using sources that don't discuss the GBD. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Terry Randall
This article is significantly in violation of policy for being short on citations.

Two examples just in the OPENING header: 1) "which he later abandoned." -- What is the source?

2) "The group became particularly prominent beginning in 1987 for blockading the entrances to abortion clinics" -- What is the source?

3) "Terry led the group until 1991." What is the source

4) "In 2003, Terry founded the Society for Truth and Justice and conducted a program called Operation Witness." What is the source?

Also, this article, like so many on Wikipedia, weaves a pro-abortion worldview into the narrative. What happened to the Wiki standard for the facts...and nothing but the facts???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.70.178 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not reviewed the article, but content in the WP:lead is generally one exception to the requirement everything much be sourced in line. If the content is covered and sourced in the article, then it's often not necessary to repeat the source in the lead. Also Wikipedia was never about "for the facts.. and nothing but the facts". Perhaps you are thinking of some other website. Instead see WP:NPOV e.g. "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If what you call the "pro-abortion worldview" predominates in reliable sources, then so it will in Wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, if our article on Terry Randall covers such details then we likely do have a major problem. However it doesn't at this time and I doubt it ever did. Our article on Randall Terry does cover such details. It does look like the sourcing might be problematic but I haven't carefully reviewed it. Nil Einne (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Joss Whedon
Seems to be some problems with the article's lead regarding recent events and there is conversation Talk:Joss Whedon, I feel there seems to be an epic edit-war brewing up. Might need further help. Govvy (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Vladimir Ashurkov
User is repeatedly adding a content based on deprecated source RT (TV network). One user reverted it - Muchandr reverted it back - I reverted it - Muchandr added it back. I warned him, but he just don't understand. He tried to add another source to support his claim, but it's not much better than RT.--Renat (talk) 14:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I kept RT, because it is the only source where the commentary is in English. There are plenty of other sources, but they introduce entirely unnecessary Russian translation and dub, because the original audio is in English. Meaning, RT's is the most convinient source for the English-language audience. Moreover, it ought to make no difference, as the RT's source is a spycam surveillance video leaked to them by the FSB, which should speak for itself, as any documentary. (As in, you may disbelief it being genuine as a whole, but you may not reject it partially based on a technicality of RT being listed as less reliable, as say the BBC. From conversations with it is obvious that he considers even the bottom-feeding British tabloids to be more reliable than anything Russian, including even the Russian Wiki (which is VERY competitive on current politics) Upon his request, I added a reference to Gazeta.ru, which is the largest and most cited online newspaper in Russia and 5th most frequented site overall. Contrary to English Wiki's (unsubstantiated) claim, it is not at all pro-government. (Most of the print and online media lean towards opposition content, while the government controls the TV. This is what sells. It seems, they got that label on the account of running some articles critical of Navalny. I am welcome to suggestions, as in Russian language, the news bit appears to have been syndicated by Yandex News, which got very permissive syndication rules for 3rd party reprints, similar to Google News. Unfortunately, the best source for unmolested English soundtracks is still RT. Also note that between my edits and reverts, I was second-sourced by a user out of Pakistan to their local source in English. Muchandr (talk) 15:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * RT is a deprecated source (i.e. unreliable beyond doubt), and is unsuited to BLPs (WP:BLPRS). It's actually weird that you would insist, because there is an explicit warning when you try to use it as a source.--JBchrch (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Since the Urdupoint source report what RT says, it is equally unusable.--JBchrch (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The presence of RT is a red herring! I kept it because it is the only source which didn't dub the original English audio into Russian. There are tons of other Russian sources, but do you really want them just to get rid of the warning? I added Gazeta.ru, the largest and most cited online newspaper in Russia. Here, a screenshot https://img.gazeta.ru/files3/50/13464050/cadr-pic4_zoom-1500x1500-26848.jpg Does it or does it not look like our guy? If you look at the video, you can hear the guy asking the British official for cool $10-$20 mil in funding, offering to subvert major Russian business for benefit of British competitors. Ultimately, it is claimed to be some kind of documentary footage RT didn't make which should stand on its own. You either believe it is what it is, or you don't. But the argument very well deserves to be heard. Should this be true, is the guy no political dissident. How do you think I am supposed to reference the original source, a leaked spycam surveillance video by the FSB? The British intelligence uses Bellingcat as a suitable outlet for this, but the Russians don't have anything like that yet. If you really really insist, I can remove RT altogether and go with some rather source, but it will have a Russian dub. Is it really necessary? Oh, BTW, the British government apparently didn't bother to deny the authenticity of the video and said that working with local NGOs is part of diplomatic mission. And indeed, you may notice that the British guy commits to nothing and doesn't mention anything illegal. Ashurkov, though, talk himself into several high treason charges. Muchandr (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Vladimir Ashurkov is a Russian opposition politician and Gazeta.Ru is a Russian pro-government newspaper. Gazeta.Ru also spreads false information about living people - Proof link. So we can't use it.--Renat (talk) 15:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Gazeta.ru is a very large newspaper, with great many editors who may have diametrically opposed opinions on some subject. Having said that, the opposition content pays much better than pro-government variety, so they have more of that. For all its entertainment value, does Meduza run only viciously anti-government content and is not above deliberate fakery on a slow news day. Which is why they are based in some kind of Latveria, not Russia. Having said that, have you read the the article you link beyond the click bait titles? The corruption in a lengthy transcript attributed to Brookings Institution was done by an anonymous American IP, in a Wiki page. There is no evidence whatsoever that Gazeta didn't make a honest mistake. I don't need to explain to you that there is no such thing as anonymous IPv4 to American Feds? They can instantaneously triangulate any 48-bit Ethernet MAC. This is why the original military ARPANET used 48-bit name servers and not 13 civilian ones. Now try the Meduza. Here https://meduza.io/en/feature/2020/09/29/ending-the-nightmare does their journalist get terminally ill from a vaccination shot of Sputnik V, which turns out to be a placebo. Now that's got to be deliberate. Or anti-government conviction strong enough to cause Stigmata


 * an accusation sourced to RT is not acceptable in a BLP in any way, shape or form. Claiming that it is the only English-language source does not save its use.  In point of fact, that this deprecated source is the only English-language available source makes its use more egregious, not more allowable. Please do not continue it usage.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, remove just the RT bit, if it's the only problem. It is NOT ACTUALLY sourced to RT, but to a deliberate leak of FSB surveillance cam footage. How do you suppose I attribute an intelligence agency properly, do tell? They are obviously never unbiased, but that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with their material. Looks quite professional to me. Obviously, there needs to be a Russian Bellingcat for that, but there isn't. It is the only English-language source because the original conversation is in English. Various Russian media dubbed it over with Russian for domestic market. You can still hear muffled English in the background, but I find this rather counterproductive for the English Wiki? RT kept the English track because it is specifically catering to foreign audience, in case you didn't know. How is it their fault that the Western media prefers to stonewall this? Because this guy used to be Mr. Navalny's 2nd in-command for a while. One thing we are dealing with plucky opposition politicians, another - shills in employ of a foreign government trying to destroy the Motherland for coin. Lots of it. I mean, isn't amazing how he considers $10-$20 mil a trivial contribution for the Brits? I checked and this sort of money easily elects a mid-range US Congressman every time https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130313/02101422307/how-much-does-it-cost-to-win-election-to-congress.shtml

That was than. These days, Navalny's public BTC wallets received over 200 BTC, of which whopping 64 dropped just recently, on 29.01. Want to see? Blockchain doesn't lie. The average donation size of theirs is just under $5000. To put this into perspective, this sort of money allows even the largest private pro-government Youtube channels to operate for an entire month, paying studio rent and a couple of salaries. (they happen to be entirely "demonetized" by Youtube) All Kremlin propaganda, of course, obviously a normal donation size for the pocket money of the largely underage supporter posse Muchandr (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, wow. For your own sake just stop. Stop completely. You don't seem to understand that "just remove the RT bit" means removing the allegations completely, since the only sources are unacceptable. "A deliberate leak of FSB surveillance cam" is an even worse allegation. The Biographies of living Persons policy applies site-wide and you've just violated it copiously just on the very board dedicated to addressing BLP problems. I recommend strongly that you don't post a single thing anywhere on Wikipedia until you read, understand, and commit to following the policy I just linked.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 18:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Whitney Wolfe Herd
Can people keep an eye on the Whitney Wolfe Herd article? She recently became a billionaire and has been the subject of media attention and the Wikipedia has seen a flurry of activity over the past day. I don't think all of the edits are bad however people keep adding undue negative material cited to self-published tweets. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Gorilla Glue
I'm sure that many of you are familiar with this news story, but if you're not then here's a quick synopsis:

A woman ran out of her typical hair product and used Gorilla Glue in its place. She had to go to the ER to try and get it removed. During this she posted about this to social media, gaining media attention in the process. Around this time an outlets began to spread false claims that she is considering a lawsuit - apparently it started with TMZ. The woman herself has denied that a lawsuit was ever actually considered.

Information about this woman has been repeatedly added to the article. This poses a BLP issue since there's no evidence of lasting (or really any) impact to the company and there's the concern of misinformation being added to the article, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. I just want some extra eyeballs on the article for the time being to help prevent it from being re-added. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * At best, this may have potential as a meme but that requires some element of enduring coverage of that, of which this is not yet at. Agreed that removal at this point given the person otherwise being a non-public figure would be 100% the best option. Even if it was added, it could be added without WP mentioning the name (even though the sources would). --M asem (t) 14:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Pretty much the textbook example of why we have both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Person does something foolish, it creates a flash-in-the-pan slow-news-day item, we erect an permanent monument to her shame. This is something that needs to have been forgotten— yesterday. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 100%. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)


 * No issue for me if the story is mentioned in the article without naming her per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you be considered a "victim" if you do something to yourself and then draw attention to your actions by posting about it on social media? I don't think that's what WP:AVOIDVICTIM is meant to do. Mo Billings (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, people are often victims of their own silliness or stupidity. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The woman herself has stated that she did the videos as both a warning and because she was trying to get help, as she was scared. Whether this is the truth or a reaction to the public backlash is up for debate, but eh, not our case to argue for either side. It sounds like while she is enjoying some of the attention, she does kind of want this all to disappear. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I wasn't arguing that her story belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. I was just commenting that WP:AVOIDVICTIM is intended to give editorial guidance about people who are "victims" of crimes, not to spare people from being embarrassed by their own actions. Mo Billings (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. Note also that no where does AVOIDVICTIM say "crime". It say's "another's actions" as I highlighted below. In quite a lot of jurisdictions, prior to recent law changes, if an adult knowingly allowed someone to record them having sex, even if they said it was just for them both, and the second person the uploaded it all over the place or sent it to their friends and family, this often wouldn't be a crime. Even if an adult sent an intimate to someone else, and this person sent it all over the place, again this often wouldn't be a crime. It may have been copyright infringement, but that's generally a civil issue except in cases of significant or commercial infringement. In some jurisdictions, one or both of these may still not be a crime. It's ludicrous to suggest the "another's actions" don't apply to these just because they didn't involve crimes. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh if only I could gain fame for all my super-glue accidents... I'm going o agree with Mangoe. This isn't a case where AVOIDVICTIM even needs to come into play. If it turns into something big and lasting, then it becomes encyclopedic, but Wikipedia should not be the place to report every freak (mishap) of the week, every person that's earned themselves 5 minutes of fame, or every bit of filler newspapers use to make up space. If it turns into some huge meme or something, then I'd think about revisiting it and the AVOIDVIC, but not yet. Good chance it'll fizzle out and the next one will rise momentarily to take it's place, and in a week no one will remember this. Zaereth (talk) 06:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well there is a section in the article about health hazards and one in another article about the chemical's safety issues. I think RS will continue to refer to this incident afterwards in the caveat context of not adhering the glue to body parts. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * AVOIDVICTIM says "". This implies two things. One "another's action" means if someone sends a video to a friend who then uploads it or something, this could reasonably be taken to apply. However it's hard to say it applies when the person intentionally uploads a video to social media. But at the same time, the fact that it says this also means the section does apply when people aren't "victims", it's just not immediately of "particular importance" and the last sentence doesn't apply. Otherwise it would say something like, "this only applies" or probably a rewording of the earlier part. The first two sentences of avoid "avoid victimisation" should always be taken on board, not only in cases of "victims". Nil Einne (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

OR and non-independent sourcing on Roger Kimball page
The Roger Kimball page appears to be a BLP that doesn't get much traffic. I'm concerned about recent material that was added to the article which is solely sourced to Kimball's own article and contains OR. It appears that in December of 2020 Kimball published articles in the Epoch Times and The Spectator saying something to the effect that the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent.[]. The Epoch Time source was removed but the Spectator article was retained. This meant the only source was Kimball's own article used as a source for this content.[] Additionally, the text was edited to say Kimball repeated the "debunked and discredited" claim...  It's probably safe to assume the claims were debunked and discredited by the time the article was published but Kimball didn't say that about his own claims. I believe that makes this OR. Anyway, absent 3rd party sources raising a concern about this I think this would be UNDUE and violates OR. I would be interested in the take of editors here. Springee (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are no reliable, independent sources that note Kimballs articles, I don't see how it could possibly meet BLP, NOT, POV. --Hipal (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The disputed content is sourced to Spectator Australia, which is a WP:RS. Our perennial sources page directs that The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Since the specific cited opinion piece is not a blog, we must look to WP:RSOPINION, which explains, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. In saying that Kimball has repeated the debunked and discredited claim that Joe Biden won the election because of large-scale electoral fraud, we clearly attribute that opinion to him. In so doing, we have properly used a reliable source. NedFausa (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wrote there are no reliable, independent sources. Articles that he wrote are not independent. --Hipal (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * He is expressing his opinion, as published in a WP:RS. It is entirely compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for us to rely on this source, as long as we identify it as his opinion. We do. NedFausa (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * NOT emphasizes the need for independent sources.
 * If you're only using his own writing, then it's an OR violation as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Independent_sources. That should clear things up. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. Springee (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems like the problem is that relying solely on the author's work does not demonstrate DUE weight. Without an independent source, we haven't shown that this is due in an article on Kimball. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Hipal and Shine - the whole gang's here. Springee, you've quoted the WP:INDEPENDENT page out of context. "Subject" (noun) on WP:INDEPENDENT (it's used 33 times) clearly means "the subject of an article" (e.g. Roger Kimball himself), rather than "the subject of Roger Kimball's views on Trump". Looking at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY, there is no overt prohibition on primary sources, merely a stipulation that extreme caution should be shown. There are several more references to Kimball's own journalistic work in the article, but only the reference to Kimball's (repeated and vocal) support for a debunked conspiracy theory has been called into question. Is the position you are taking that primary sources can never be used for a BLP article? Or that calling the "2020 stolen presidential election" conspiracy theory "debunked and discredited" constitutes OR? Noteduck (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though it seems obvious, an independent reliable source must discuss Kimball's opinions as debunked and discredited or it is considered synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please help me understand. It seems you are saying that if a WP:RS were to publish an opinion piece by Roger Kimball in which he declares, for example, that the Earth is flat, we cannot add it to his BLP unless a different WP:RS reports both that:
 * Kimball believes the Earth is flat; and
 * generic claims that the Earth is flat have been debunked and discredited.
 * Do I have that right? NedFausa (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is classic WP:SYN. Picking and choosing opinion pieces that he wrote based on what we feel is important or outrageous is coatracking and unverified WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. And, to extend the analogy, if we were to add to his BLP merely the attributed quotation "I believe the Earth is flat" without identifying it, in Wikipedia's voice, as a debunked and discredited claim, would that be acceptable? NedFausa (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Why would I agree to extend the analogy given my comments about coatracking and weight? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In my clumsy way, I'm trying to craft a compromise in which we could reach consensus on substitute phrasing such as: In the aftermath of the United States Presidential Election, 2020 Kimball wrote, "This was no squalid two-bit voter fraud. It was a planned campaign. … some geniuses understood that COVID was the perfect cover for voter fraud on an industrial scale."

I do hope other editors will consider such an approach. We can then leave it to Wikipedia readers to make up their own minds about whether or not such claims have been debunked and discredited. NedFausa (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others above that this content is not WP:DUE because it is sourced solely to an opinion piece by the article subject. Especially if the article subject's claim is "debunked and discredited", I'm not sure why Wikipedia would be the appropriate place to serve as a mouthpiece for their opinions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ned, While that sentence doesn't have SYNTH has no weight since no independent RS has talked about it. This is what Hipal and I were trying to articulate. Per Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and with a few narrow exceptions) we need independent RSs to tell us what is important about a subject. If no independent sources call our attention to a specific thing/statement then we shouldn't discuss that thing/quote that statement even if we can verify the subject did it/said it. When editors look at a work by a BLP and decide to highlight a claim in the BLP's work then we the editors rather than an independent RS are giving weight to the statement. If no independent RSs have mentioned it then, per NPOV it has no weight. In this case that sentence would be fine if it were something like this:
 * "After the election Kimball wrote, [Kimball quote taken from RS]. [cite RS][cite Kimball's article]"
 * In this case the Kimball article is included as a supporting source because it was mentioned by the RS. Springee (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree with Wallyfromdilbert and Springee that the issue is that this content is not DUE. You can't just depend on WP editor opinions to decide what parts of what Kimball has wrote belong in the article. Per policy, we are to put the parts that are notable in the article, and we judge notability not based on our own personal opinions or even consensus among us--no matter how reasonable those opinions are--but based on what RS actually say about the subject. What we are seeing here is that a couple of editors find what Kimball is saying to be outrageous, and they therefore judge that readers of WP need to know that he said it. But look: it doesn't matter what you think even if you are right. It only matters what RS say is important about Kimball, and if they don't report it, it isn't DUE. That's it. Otherwise WP would not function. Every article would just report everything that every person ever said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Kimball did not just write one opinion piece in support of this discredited and ultimately insurrectionary conspiracy theory - even before results were counted he was predicting "deliberate fraud and litigation planned by the Democrats". In the aftermath of the election he vociferously promoted the conspiracy theory over and over, alleging that millions of votes were fraudulent, e.g. I can't think of any commentator who has embraced these theories more enthusiastically and more widely. At any rate, it's a moot point, as a few third-party sources have indeed written about Kimball's embrace of the "stolen election" conspiracy theory. For a critical account see, for more favorable ones see The point about when primary sources can be used is an interesting one though. For example, if a controversial journalist were to be described as bigoted or Islamophobic in the media, and then wrote an article criticizing this claim and defending themselves, would this article be inadmissible on any Wiki page on the grounds that it is not "due"? What about biographical details of a subject - are the subject's own articles inadmissible for these? Noteduck (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For example, if a controversial journalist were to be described as bigoted or Islamophobic in the media, and then wrote an article criticizing this claim and defending themselves, would this article be inadmissible on any Wiki page on the grounds that it is not "due"? That would depend. Per ABOUTSELF if an article criticizing Kimball for X, Y and Z came out and Kimball replied on his personal blog we could note that Kimball replied and cite the blog entry.  If the reply was little more than "no I'm not" then we could say he replied but wouldn't bother to quote him.  If the reply was pure trash (say he doubled down on a clearly debunked claim) then we probably wouldn't bother.  In some cases where the reply is well considered we may choose to use more of it.  See this discussion [] Springee (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with the critical or favorable independent sources Noteduck provided is that they are at best WP:RSOPINION, cannot be used to assert facts, and it's not clear how much weight they should be assigned given the publishers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Kimball has vociferously endorsed a violent conspiracy theory, and a bunch of non-primary media sources have reported on it - of course this belongs on his page, but I'll think about the best way to integrate it. Springee, your logic is not sound here. On what grounds are you claiming such a reply would meet the threshold of WP:INDEPENDENT? Why does a primary account of a public figure endorsing a crazy conspiracy theory not belong on their page, but their response to a claim of endorsement of said conspiracy theory does? Noteduck (talk) 09:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because mentioning the denial would be required under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The best way to integrate the endorsement into the article is to gain consensus per WP:BLPRESTORE. The non-primary media you refer to are also opinion pieces rather than news reports. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Noteduck, I'm not sure I understand your comment regarding something meeting the threshold of Independent. As for what belongs on Kimball's page, the only content that belongs on his page is content that has WEIGHT.  Wikipedia has rules for sourcing.  For example, if a public figure, on their personal blog, says he thinks the Cultural Revolution was a great thing but no RS mention it then we have to assume the claim has no weight and thus shouldn't be mentioned on Wikipedia.  If only non-reliable sources mention it then again, no weight.  The principle is anything that should be mentioned will have been mentioned by independent, reliable sources.  Springee (talk) 14:26, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Lisa D. Cook
Lisa D. Cook is an economist who is currently in the news--for example, see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-11/white-house-officials-back-economist-lisa-cook-for-fed-board. Twice this week, Special:Contributions/Hangsun.577 has edited the article to insert a tweet made by a co-author about the Tea Party movement. Here are the edits that concern me:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_D._Cook&type=revision&diff=1006113452&oldid=994252727
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lisa_D._Cook&type=revision&diff=1006319054&oldid=1006279365

I think these insertions are irrelevant to the current contents of the article, and the way they are written ("without evidence") seems like a slanted point of view to me. I've reverted this twice, so I want someone else to get involved.--EAWH (talk) 13:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have warned User:Hangsun.577 that if this is repeated they will be blocked. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

William Kwaku Asante vs Joseph King Amankrah
There appears to be some confusion here, I think the latter should be deleted...GrahamHardy (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging, GrahamHardy. I thought perhaps the first article was just used as a template, but the refs don't refer to anyone called Amankrah and I can't find that there was a Ghanian politician by this name. I speedily deleted it as a hoax. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Laura Kelly
This page is being locked by certain users who are preventing reasonable edits based on factual information accompanied by proper sourcing. They simply keep arguing the information is not relevant and undoing edits rather than making any suggested changes or their own modifications edits to fix concerns. The edits involve Laura Kelly and her administration's response to the COVID pandemic, which are certainly relevant to Laura Kelly's BLP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aggieville (talk • contribs) 19:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to be an ordinary content dispute where Aggieville needs to gain WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page before restoring the material as per WP:ONUS. Here is an example of the content that IPs have been edit warring into the article the past few days: . It looks like that content has been removed by four different editors over the past two days for WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH concerns. Aggieville has created the following thread on the article's talk page if anyone is interested: Talk:Laura Kelly. I tend to agree with the response left by there that the content would be better for the article on the COVID-19 pandemic in Kansas rather than Kelly's biography. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This article has been repeatedly edited without reaching consensus. The edits were done by a user without login. Request for semi-protection was granted (not done by users who contested those edits as insinuated by ) by administrator. The edits do not pertain to the governor herself. Given the argument, you could literally cite any event in the sate during the tenure of the governor. According to Wikipedia:BLP BLP's are not newsblogs. I am glad, Aggievielle decided to open an account so we can have a discussion on this. --FantinoFalco (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Qiyu Zhou
User Ben-Tiger-Woods appears to be the subject's mother. I don't understand the full story, but apparently she is worried about how her daughter's choices will reflect on the family. I do not have any proof, btw., that this user is in fact her mother. It just fits the story that has been told on twitch and the contributions of this user also make it fairly clear that there is some COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ben-Tiger-Woods). Also her talk page hints at this having been a problem in the past as well (which apparently got forgotten/dropped when there was some unpleasantness with vandalism in the past).

User Ben-Tiger-Woods seems to hide "problematic" edits between larger numbers of mostly innocent edits. For example I don't know if every single interview someone has done is relevant for their wiki page. And making it into a story about "positive effect on society" is a bit of a reach. I wouldn't even care about those edits.

But then there is stuff like this one somewhere in the middle of a couple of other revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&type=revision&diff=1005669698&oldid=1005666112

The streamer explicitly said that she dropped out of school to pursue streaming. She intends to finish her degree "one day before her grandparents die". For this year she has dropped her classes and did the official paperwork to drop out. And the justification for the linked change was "correct the vandalism for a livng person, in Canada, you can never drop out a college, instead, you can pursue the degree as long as you want in your lifetime span" - which is ridiculous.

(Removing poland, btw., is correct (same revision, a bit further up). That is a running gag in her stream that keeps getting put back on her page. This might warrant protecting the page.)

--2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:ACBA:45DA:8CEE:DF4 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Still me. There was a bit of an edit war in the history and I just noticed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GordonJunior

In the specific case of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&diff=prev&oldid=1005998487 I tend to agree. They streamed together for a while. Now they don't. That doesn't seem to warrant marking them as associated acts (not sure what the rules for that attribute are, but this is a very loose association).

But considering all the contributions this user did it is clear that this is another account that has been created with the specific purpose of making "friendly"/COI edits to this page.

e.g. (keeping with the above theme of covering up dropping out of school) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&diff=prev&oldid=1005792986

--95.89.12.116 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, good gravy. Where to start... This article has been created and maintained, and edit-warred over by a host of SPAs (WP:Single purpose accounts). It's not proper to speculate on who, but I would say it's likely several of them are the same user, or otherwise have some COI. That said, the subject is most certainly notable, but the article is just awful. It takes the idea of putting everything into a timeline of events much too literally, making for a very dry reading. There are a lot of good sources, and a lot of good info from those sources that tell us more about the person --which is what this article is about-- which for some reason we're not utilizing. Then there are quite a few primary sources that are being used inappropriately. There is also quite a bit of chess jargon that is not really explained to the general reader (ie: things like U-10 should be spelled out at least one, "under the age of 10). This article is in the need of a major overhaul to make it more of an encyclopedic article and less like a resume. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * (Just pinging in case they haven't seen this discussion. Sportsfan77777 has overhauled the article massively since the above was written and we're currently mid-Good Article review. Could be that I'm completely out of the loop and Sportsfan77777 is already well aware of this thread but I guess this is something to bear in mind when observing future edits by others.) — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow. To Sportsfan77777, I am impressed. It looks like a totally different article. I haven't had time to read all the way through it yet, but from what I've seen, good job. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping Bilorv, I had not seen this. And thanks for the gratitude, Zaereth! I had not assumed that user had a COI (although it wouldn't surprise me given that her father created the page, and at another point tried to delete it for no clear reason). I will be mindful of that possibility in the future. (Though, I also wonder as to how the IP user above knows that?) At the moment though, I had them blocked (for SOCK-ing, not for a COI), and I rewrote the whole page, so them editing the page may not be a concern for now. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Alan Mikhail
Several editors are obviously biased and only add negative materials. This should be neutral. Facts only. Not opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pakistan4ever (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing dates of birth from tweets by subject
The Dream (Youtuber) article has a lot of drive by edits to add the date of birth, sourced to unreliable sources, including recent repeat additons by the user sourced to the blacklisted Famous Birthdays  and "influencermarketinghub.com". All of these sources just appear to be copy pasting each other without providing a source of the date. The ultimate source of the date (as cited on their Wikia article) appears to be two tweets by the subject on two separate accounts. The first essentially states "its my birthday" dated August 12th 2020, while the second is from the same day and is a picture of a cake with "21" on it, captioned "yummy". In my view, taking from this "August 12, 1999" as a birth date is a novel synthesis. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:37, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That's exactly right, and, like the above DOB discussion, this has come up here before many a time. Twitter is rarely, if ever, a reliable source on its own, and many tweets are far too open to interpretation. People routinely lie about their birthdates, or celebrate them on the nearest holiday or weekend, or celebrate "rebirths", etc... Anything short of a direct statement along the lines of, "My birthdate is..." is going to reek of synth. I'd stick to the "technicalities" on this. If it's not found in multiple reliable sources, then we should err on the side of caution and remove it. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Eddie McGuire
There has been multiple founded claims about Eddie McGuire being racist from players who played for Collingwood FC. While this is a contentious issue, the topic is factual, and of interest to the entirety of Australia. Understandably, multiple other users and IPs have come out in support of McGuire. I would appreciate some help in dealing with this matter objectively as BLPs are not really my territory. The rules of the fourth estate apply here to defend the validity of claims until proven otherwise. --120.22.146.148 (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem with it being on the article, as long as it is properly sourced and WP:NPOV. No need for it to be in the lede. --SuperJew (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * If you have a better solution then fix it. --210.1.220.106 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to. I don't have the time or energy rn to do that legwork, research, and careful writing. My point is that the information shouldn't be in the lede. That doesn't put the onus on me to put it elsewhere. --SuperJew (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, SuperJew, I think you're wrong: it's a big deal, controversy about racism and sexism has surrounded him for years, and being made to step down is important enough. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a big deal, because that's how the media likes to paint it. McGuire has done plenty for inclusion, both of indigenous and LGBT. As says below, we need to be careful with the wording and give a neutral point-of-view. Your message is enough example of it - not everyone will agree with you that he was made to step down - he surely could've continued, but has decided to retire as he has been considering the last couple of years. --SuperJew (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * After looking at the article in it's current form, I will say that the way you worded it in the lede seems to me more neutral and descriptive than the previous ways (which said he is racist or accused of racism). --SuperJew (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * SuperJew, I was trying to find a way that got the bare facts in without either casting stones (though it seems clear there's plenty of rocks laying around) or getting all verbose with describing who said what in which context and which publication. Economy is a virtue. Thanks--but I'll add that I wrote that up after just a cursory read so I'm sure there's room for improvement. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We have to be very careful with our wording. It's one thing to say that a joke, statement, decision or whatever is racist; but it's quite another to say that the person involved is a racist, which means that he has a deeply imbedded bias/hatred against some/all other races, which is demonstrated on a very frequent, probably daily, basis. Some of McGuire's utterances might be described as racist in content, but to extrapolate from that to say that he is a racist is a step fraught with difficulties, and best avoided. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * And that would apply regardless of sources/commentators who describe him as racist. They probably call him an arsehole, wanker, dickhead ... as well, but that doesn't make him one. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  00:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)


 * We have a problem in this country of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to racism... Regardless of who said what, if you make racist comments you are racist. This applies under calling a duck a duck and there is specifically worded tight regulations on when you can apply the duck theory above. --120.22.234.44 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to nitpick, but WP:DUCK definitely does not apply here -- verbatim, from the current version of the page: "The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump, or even stand aside, policies such as no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view." --50.100.77.106 (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Charles Allen Dyer
This page dies not say disputed. This case is greatly contested. The wife lied on the stand because she was being divorced for illicit sex acts. She looked up how to win custody at all costs. Her computer had all the evidence however never presented in court.

Further your article places a minor child in danger and by stating who the alleged victim is. This is grievous!

All your articles are biased, this one is out right wreckless and dangerous, promoting anyone with minamal effort to be able to harass and harm any persons involved in the case.

This article need to be removed in Its entirety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:101:3D00:B9FC:6083:B777:DF27 (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello. There is no Wikipedia article called Charles Allen Dyer. Please give us the exact name of the Wikipedia article in question. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:00, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that you are talking about Charles A. Dyer. His felony conviction is well documented. Any problems you have with the article should be discussed at Talk: Charles A. Dyer. Wikipedia summarizes what published, reliable sources say about the topic. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case
From the lead: "The Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case revolved around an 11-year-old American named Jessica Leonhardt (known as "Jessi Slaughter" and "Kerligirl13" online) whose profanity-laden videos went viral on Stickam and YouTube in 2010."

From the lead caption: "Dahvie Vanity (right) (real name Jesus David Torres), whose alleged underage sexual relationship with Jessi Slaughter (real name Jessica (now Damien) Leonhardt) led to the posting of videos online, for which they were bullied and harassed. Although Leonhardt denied the claims due to online pressure, they and multiple others later accused Vanity of raping or sexually abusing them as children"

BLPN discussion from 2010: Archive90. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though I commented in the AfD in 2010, I've gone ahead and deleted this as a BLP emergency, given that so many real names and serious allegations are involved, and some of the sources don't look ideal. SarahSV (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , can you take us through your thinking about why you recreated this? SarahSV (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I recreated the article because of the (2018–19) rape/assault allegations against Dahvie Vanity, and the in-depth Chris Hansen interview which revealed new information. I was thinking of moving the page over to a title which focused on this aspect over the "cyberbullying" (in reality harassment and abuse of a minor). The fact that there have been FBI investigations and articles talking about this ten years since the initial incident (and since the page was deleted) showed some continued notability, and the reason why it was deleted in the first place – safety concerns over the BLP of a child – seem redundant now.
 * If there are problems with the sources, or use of real names, or other personal information, then those sources and revisions can be deleted. This is a notable topic regarding the bullying of an alleged victim of sexual abuse, who has given on-the-record and in-depth interviews with reliable sources about the harassment they received. – Bangalamania (talk) 04:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no indication in the article, unless I missed it, that the police were investigating. If there's consensus that I shouldn't have deleted it (or if uninvolved admins/editors say so), I'm willing of course to undelete, or anyone else can do it without checking with me first. SarahSV (talk) 04:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it was mentioned in the article, apologies if it wasn't.
 * "Insider has also learned that an FBI special agent interviewed Leonhardt and two women who have also accused Torres of sexual assault, though no charges have been filed. Those two women, in addition to Leonhardt, told the FBI that Torres sexually assaulted them when they were underage. Both women provided Insider screenshots of correspondence with the same FBI special agent."
 * – Bangalamania (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Insider Inc. doesn't appear to be an RS for serious allegations in a BLP, and you would need multiple sources, that's assuming the accused counts as a sufficiently public figure per BLP. And even if yes, I think it would have to be written differently. SarahSV (talk) 04:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You can always nominate it for deletion review, i.e. ask that the AfD deletion and mine be overturned. That's probably the best way ahead if you still want to recreate it. SarahSV (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that Insider wasn't an RS for this; I know that Business Insider has no consensus over at WP:RSN, but this isn't syndicated content. Even without that fact, I would think that this topic warrants an article.
 * Thanks for being so kind and guiding me through the process, I have listed it up at the deletion review now (Deletion review/Log/2021 February 15). − Bangalamania (talk) 05:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Jesse Slaughter has had significant coverage in major news sources, and this is worthy of covering in an article in some form but I agree that care is needed in how the material is presented to comply with the Biographies of living persons policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to concur with Hemiauchenia. Jessi Slaughter and Dahvie Vanity have both seen a spike in coverage since 2019. I found sources from The Independent and Buzzfeed News that prove that WP:PERSISTENCE is met. I do agree that we need to do whatever we can to ensure this article is accurate though. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Carlos Sentis
This pwrson has created his own wikipedia pahe. He is self promoting his pwrson portrayinghimself as a world leader. He uses wikipedia for his own promotion and has uploaded the version of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.138.171.45 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, I have to say, that article is terrible. It's just a few days old, and I would say it reads like a resume, except even a resume has some sort of context. This is really just a list of jobs. The sourcing also looks bad at forst glance, although I haven't had time to go through them all, what I have seen are basically primary sources like company profiles. I would say this looks like a likely candidate for AFD, but a part of me is thinking it may be better to just speedy it as no indication of importance, as, beyond the fact that he has had a lot of prestigious positions, there is just nothing written in the article to indicate what make this person noteworthy.


 * Someone with more time should really look into it deeper and see if it's worth salvaging or if it should be deleted one way or the other. Zaereth (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Millie Perkins
Millies biography states she only appeared in 4 episodes of ANY DAY NOW. According to IMDB, she appeared in 14 episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:6224:DE00:C935:76C5:805:D55D (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but IMDB is never a reliable source. In fact, they get a lot of their info from us, even sometimes copying vandalism and our mistakes. Please find a reliable source for this and perhaps we can help. Zaereth (talk) 05:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Proud Boys and political protest type articles in general
The discussion stems around whether to include the names of individual arrestee roster in the article Proud Boys simply because they appeared in a list of so and so were arrested/charged at so and so protest/incident prior to conviction. I argued against it, but an editor in favor of inclusion argues "seriously consider not including" does not mean do not include". The only thing credible is the fact arrests of those individuals were made, but as far as I know, including those names prior to conviction is discouraged and not included without compelling reason to include them regardless of which political group these arrests are attributed to. Graywalls (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are the policies to consider here. Is there any loss of context if the members are not individually named? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe not naming them really affects the context. As far as I see it, there's no hurry to rattle off names. That can wait until there's a conviction or it could be talked about in more general terms. Graywalls (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ONUS, those wishing to include should gain consensus to do so. See also WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps as a non-involved editor to this point, you could have a look at the discussion Talk:Proud_Boys Graywalls (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about including the names of those arrested for crimes related to a major event simply because they are associated with a particular organization. I think that WP:BLPCRIME means we have to consider individuals on a case-by-case basis when it comes to allegations of a crime, especially for non-public figures who have not yet been convicted. I also left a comment on the article's talk page with my perspective. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Many of these Proud Boys members who were arrested are limited interest public figures, defined in U.S. law as "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome". They include former candidates for public office and other people considered celebrities on the far right who are frequently interviewed by the media and have podcasts and online shows devoted to discussing controversies for the public. Joe Biggs is just one example. I see no reason to exclude the names of public figures who have been arrested for serious offenses. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  21:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here are other examples of Proud Boys arrested at the Capitol who are public figures: Nicholas Ochs was a 2020 candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature, backed by Roger Stone. Gabriel Garcia was a 2020 candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. Nicholas DeCarlo runs a group called Murder the Media and has a YouTube channel called Thunderdome TV. Ethan Nordean AKA Rufio Panman was interviewed at length in 2018 by Alex Jones on Infowars and runs a political podcast called Rebel Talk with Rufio. I support mentioning these public figures in our coverage of the arrests of Proud Boys in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think discussing specific names with specific information is the best way. From a legal perspective, one or two interviews is generally not sufficient to establish someone as a limited public figure, but I'm not sure how much we need to go by U.S. law. However, I think each individual does need to be evaluated a case-by-case basis with the factors at WP:LOWPROFILE unless they are clearly a public figure, as well as consideration of why particular names are important to the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the people I mentioned above are all the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, including coverage before January 6 in all cases. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  00:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you could provide links to that type of information, I think that would be very helpful, as I am not able to find significant coverage before January 6 using Google searches. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

, I am beginning an article about Ethan Nordean AKA Rufuo Panman, which is located at User:Cullen328/sandbox/Nordean. At the time of this writing, the draft consists of twelve references, three of which go back to 2018. If you add keywords related to the 2020 state legislature elections to a Google News search for Ochs and Garcia, you will find plenty of coverage from 2020 that describes how their campaigns were backed by powerful men close to Trump. As for Joe Biggs, there are at least six references in his biography that predate the events of January 6, and the article was created last October. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because you can find sources, doesn't necessarily mean they make for an appropriate article, considering all three of NOT, BLP, and NPOV, as well as SIGCOV of WPN:. Spot checking the refs in Nordean, the ones prior to Jan 6 2021 aren't really good signs for notability: MediaMatter would be considered a name drop and not sufficient for notability. The others all seem to be similar name drops. That would make him very much not a public figure that we should not be highlighting despite the coverage post Jan 6.  --M asem  (t) 01:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I share Masem's concerns with sources such as MediaMatters or SPLC being used to show someone as a public figure, which is sometimes a higher bar than notability, and I am not sure Nordean satisfies either. The SPLC articles discuss Nordean punching someone and posting in private Facebook groups, but it does not seem that he has actively sought out media attention or had a prominent role in the January 6 riot or as a leader of the Proud Boys. I don't think a single appearance on Infowars is enough to establish someone as a public figure. Joe Biggs seems to be notable and was also called the "a leader of the Proud Boys" by the NYT, and so I do not see an issue with mentioning him in the article. I don't think simply listing any members of the Proud Boys who have been arrested is appropriate unless they are clearly a member of the Proud Boys and had some type of more significant or prominent role in the controversy beyond being a participant. Depending on how its worded, including former candidates for state offices may be appropriate and along with mentioning why their participation was relevant and important. It may be helpful for all the non-notable people being included to also have it mentioned in the article why they are relevant to be included. If someone else is objecting to their inclusion, then I think we need to be able to provide links to the sources to support our claims. I don't think it is too much to ask for sources before including the names of non-notable people in an article for being arrested for a serious crime. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing that Ethan Nordean's coverage before January 6 made him notable by Wikipedia's standards on the 5th, but rather that his documented activities before January 6 made him a public figure according to U.S. law and common sense, and that anyone who reads those twelve sources carefully will understand that he is just as much of a top tier leader of the Proud Boys nationally as is Joe Biggs. And the Wall Street Journal coverage makes it clear that Biggs and Nordean were, effectively, the two leaders of a coordinated mob of roughly 100 Proud Boys on January 6. The coverage of Nordean in reliable sources since January 6 has been massive, and includes extensive original reporting. Much of that coverage describes events before January 6 in addition to extensive content about his participation in that major historical event at the Capitol. I believe that the quality and depth of this coverage overcomes any WP:BLP1E concerns. If anyone disagrees, they are free to make an AfD nomination after I finish the article and move it to main space. I will, of course, oppose such a nomination, and I am highly confident that the community will agree with me.  <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328   Let's discuss it  04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I invite any editor to read this article in the Seattle Times and other similar articles, and then try to argue that Nordean is not notable. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, BLPCRIME/BLP1E have a higher weight here, particularly as there's no conviction yet so we cannot assume guilt (compared to the tone of these articles you are using). We purposely avoid giving these type of people standalone articles if they have no significant notability ahead of time (which is definitely the case with Nordean) and there's no post-conviction analysis of the person's motives. This is not to say that if Nordean is found guilty (or even what we know now) he cannot be covered in the PB article to document his involvement, but we cannot presume guilt and write that way about it. --M asem (t) 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have completed an article about Ethan Nordean. I welcome input. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  22:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The blow-by-blow account of current court processes shouldn't be there IMO. Just because a page was created doesn't make him a "public figure" to Wiki standard. Graywalls (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I also have some concerns about whether there is coverage about him that overcomes WP:BLP1E since it's not obvious from the sources in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Either one of you or any other editor can take the article to AfD, where I am highly confident that the article would be kept. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well now there's citation overkill, (a copy & paste from the Proud Boys article?), of articles that don't even seem to mention Nordean. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the references and already removed some that didn't mention him. I may have missed some, but you may need to look for his nom de guerre being used too. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how well it's cited, I find the entire section Ethan_Nordean undue, on which convictions haven't been secured. Given the way the article's creator said "violent right wing" at the talk page of the article where this spun off of, I'm sensing a hint of bias. Special:Diff/1005035470. No? Graywalls (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Hint of bias"? Incorrect. The phrase "violent right wing" accurately summarizes the very broad consensus of reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the Proud Boys. If you are going to talk about me, please ping me, . <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could post a diff of the comment you mentioned, because context is important. Many of these individuals either advocate violence themselves, or are affiliated with organizations where violence is a part of their raison d'être, so sometimes the shoe fits. Regardless of that, I agree that some mention of anyone who's a public figure (if even just low-level) is probably due. But I agree in theory with those urging caution in how much space to devote to these individuals; this should be individually weighted, and those with limited coverage beyond BLP1E deserve little more than a brief mention. Others are in the public eye enough that they should probably be in article space, as a subject. We shouldn't be shy about documenting something encyclopedic. And there's no doubt that the events and recent zeitgeist in the AP topic area are inherently encyclopedic. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Robin Lane Fox
Hello, Regarding the entry concerning Robin Lane Fox, I do not understand the need to indicate at the end of the article about him that he is an atheist. I do not see any sort of similar description (of religious preference or lack of it) in the other biographical entries that I've read on Wikipedia (admittedly I have not read everyone of them). I do not see the importance or need for it here and if it's needed here then it's need in all bios. There is precious little in the article about him as it stands, it needs more but not that. If I knew more about him I would add it, but I don't that's why I looked him up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob em (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's both relevant and uncontroversial, Bob em: "Robin Lane Fox is an ancient historian who once wrote a book (The Unauthorised Version, 1991) announcing his own atheism and his intention to expose the historical contradictions underlying the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament". Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mindy Seu
Article has been previously flagged for not meeting Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies. No new credible sources have been found or added since it was first flagged.Please remove the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jks144 (talk • contribs)
 * That tag was added last month. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems like a POINTY request given Draft:Keetra_Dean_Dixon. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Allen v. Farrow
Ongoing discussion on the talk page re inclusion of negative reviews.

This is a highly trafficked article on a controversial subject, and I think WP:BLPBALANCE mandates that we go to extra lengths to provide balance by including all perspectives on the documentary that are allowed by WP:V, and not use UNDUE to exclude negative critical reaction. So far there is only one negative review, but it is questionable for selfpub reasons. I wonder if perhaps we should include it anyway. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speaking generally, I'd keep in mind Okrent's Law. We have to be very careful when balancing things so as not to create a false balance. If a source is questionable, then it certainly doesn't deserve the same weight as more reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 18:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You have to be carefully here because BLPSPS also applies if those SPS sources are speaking negatively against Farrow (in their support of Allen). Technically, the only SPS sources for critical review of the work would be from Woody Allen or Mia Farrow (or any other real-life figures presented in the show) as being the central figures of the documentary to comment on their portrayal or the factual accuracy from their POV, and the article presently includes what I saw pass in the news about Allen's criticism of it (not requiring an SPS use). --M asem  (t) 18:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Stacey Dooley
Stacey Dooley's birth name is not Anastacia. See below:

https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=8782&h=11889319&tid=&pid=&queryId=ea6fd710323819750b9c3bf5193f228d&usePUB=true&_phsrc=Ibq75&_phstart=successSource

This was put about probably as a joke by Kevin Clifton, and has been inserted into this page when it is in fact incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOwl1970 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I did also not find any source for this name at all, every Biography is mentioning her as Jaclyn, I removed it.CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's still incorrect. She was born Stacey Jaclyn Dooley as her birth entry shows. Unless she has changed it by deed poll to Anastacia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MissOwl1970 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , well User is by using a web cite to the yellow press of different opinion. See here:  CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the sourcing of her name as Anastasia is poor, relying on entertainment/gossip sources; perhaps we could add a footnote saying her partner said this was her name in an interview but this is unconfirmed? I can't see her birth certificate and we couldn't use it as a source in any case. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:17, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This paywalled Telegraph profile says "Anastacia Jaclyn Dooley grew up with her mother Diane and stepfather Norman Niblock in Luton." As she spoke to the journalist, that seems more reliable. Fences  &amp;  Windows  20:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting since indeed her birth certificate in Luton does not mention "Anastacia". I have access since yesterday on the db and the General Register Office; United Kingdom; Reference: Volume 9, Page 815 for Luton does not mention Anastacia. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The name Anastacia was included on her wiki biography for ages before the Telegraph article was published. Its probably a case of citogenesis. I would not use the Telegraph article as a source for this fact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

British Members of Parliament - Date of Birth
Currently it appears that many articles about British Members of Parliament (MPs) contain dates of birth either unsourced or sourced to this raw data from the UK Parliament's official website, thought to be wrong in at least one case (Paul Maskey). Limited RSN discussion found issues with the reliability of the source. Users like and  have taken issue either by comment or by reverting with 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:406C:FFD7:660:B013, who rapidly removed many of the DOBs. A reminder that WP:BLP says: Contentious material about living persons [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion (emphasis in the original). Per WP:BURDEN, if you revert then you must be able to explain why the information you are re-adding is true and justified by the reliability of the source, rather than justifying the action procedurally ("discussion was in the wrong forum", "more discussion needed"). Recall also that WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private" and such information must be "widely published" for us to include it (which the raw data obviously and egregiously fails).

says they emailed one MP to confirm their date of birth, which is fine as an extra precaution, but does not get around the fact that all sources we use must be published, and this information in particular needs to be widely published.

I suggest we treat this as a serious BLP issue and continue the IP's efforts by removing all dates of birth with no source or the raw data as source, and then manually on a case-by-case basis re-adding those for which we can find reliable sources (WP:SELFPUB included). Or, if someone can find an actually reliable list of all MPs DOBs then we could use that as a source (but every DOB will still need to be checked against that new source). I am aware that this is a huge pain that could take a lot of editors' time but it is important to take this seriously. — Bilorv ( talk ) 14:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Also discussed on this noticeboard at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive323. I'd cleared out the dates of birth referenced by the whole list (see ), I wasn't aware of the individual records search being used as well. Those results can (hopefully) be seen at . FDW777 (talk) 15:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I agree with and do not see it fit to revert until we have resolved this. My exact comment on the IP user's talk page was:
 * Hello. Having looked at the linked discussion in your edit summaries, it a. was held in the wrong forum and b. was only contributed to by four users with minimal policy referencing. I recommend re-instating the DOBs but with a Better source needed or Citation needed template, since the priority of including key facts such as DOBs in pages is why said templates exist. Thanks.
 * This remains my recommendation so that should be considered my contribution to the discussion. Alex (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The date of birth a British MP is rarely a particularly interesting part of their article. I contest the idea that it is a "key fact". At most, the year of birth is of some interest, but the exact day matters not one iota. We should err on the side of caution/WP:BLP and remove until we are confident the information is well sourced. Wikipedia is meant to be about good quality prose, not being an almanac of birthdays. Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does Wikidata fit into this? Right now, of course, a lot of its sourcing just scrapes from Wikipedia, which is not helpful. wikidata:Wikidata:WikiProject British Politicians might be where this is resolved? --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikidata's "referencing" of other Wikimedia projects is horrendously circular and asks for trouble. Let's clear up our mess and leave them to theirs. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. So we should wipe the things completely until there's a reliable source -- which would consist simply of someone other than us making the proper query to that database, publishing it somewhere that satisfies WP:RS, and then all that now-questionable data is valid. This is solely a technicality; nobody is saying the data is per se unreliable, just that it doesn't meet our BLP standard to the letter. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:10, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is correct, I have contacted this person(s) using email. By no surprise I have not gotten any response back. Opkiller82 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend being very cautious in contacting subjects directly. Not only is it OR and presents COI issues, and a whole slew of problems one might not anticipate, but in many instances subjects can find it downright creepy. Might advice is just be very cautious. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It's nice that we're all on the same page. DOBs are really trivial information in the scope of a person's entire life and career. It's nice to have them when readily available, but not at all necessary for understanding the subject any more than it would be for understanding, say ... lasers. If it was in even a government profile then I would probably say ok, but if you have to dig through lines of code to find it, then I would say the source fails all measure of BLP policy and is straying into OR territory. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not consider that someone else publishing the DOBs in bulk would meet WP:BLPDOB. Remember that especially for DOBs, although as for all areas of Wikipedia, the information being unreliable is not the only consideration. The information also needs to be sufficiently published in sources to merit inclusion on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, as I say nearly every time this comes up, we do have a lot of articles with DOBs where the sourcing clearly does not meet our standards. It doesn't help that a lot of people think of DOBs in a similar manner to Alex, important biographical information that must be included when policy says almost the opposite. We get similar problems with real names/birth names/full names as well as the names of childrenetc, although there's normally stronger push back against that. Nil Einne (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood, . The data is not necessarily accurate because we know it was wrong in the case of Paul Maskey and no-one has actually checked accuracy in other cases (that I can see). If another source just copied this data then I would be concerned of that source's reliability. It's also not a technicality that a source has to publish it because we need per WP:BLPPRIVACY the information to be widely published for safeguarding reasons. I'm not saying that data is wrong. I'm saying that data has not been proven to be correct, and that even if it were correctness would not be sufficient. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:47, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Just spotted you referring to the Wikidata MPs project - from that side, I don't think we have an easy answer here, sorry. I've been mostly focused on validating the career data not the biographical data.
 * At the moment about 500 of the 650 sitting MPs have a date of birth sourced to the Parliament linked-data service (which has the same underlying data as this bulk source; report) - it looks like I added these sources at some time last year, as most were otherwise just "imported from Wikipedia". However, given the issues flagged up here I may have to look at this again... Andrew Gray (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This again? Raw data is not a reliable source without informed interpretation and publication. WP:BLP requires adherance to reliability that in other areas is less problematic. Secondly, WP:DOB is very clear on the requirement for reliable sources. Lastly, a database provided by the Houses of Parliament containing data on its own members (MPs) is a primary source. And WP:BLPPRIMARY is also very clear on using primary sources for details like DOB's. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In a strange turn of events, the current removal spree is by the same IP editor that caused the previous threads by insisting the raw data had to be used. FDW777 (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


 * , As it happens, I am the same person who sparred with you on numerous occasions on this issue when I fought vehemently for the British Parliament website. It was upon your counsel and realising there was not just the one case in Paul Maskey, but in several cases upon checking more reliable secondary sources that I realised you were right and I was wrong, and I am delighted to say I totally agree with you now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:b416:3000:cd4c:9d2e:9149:ddd4 (talk • contribs) 2021-02-17 22:46:24 (UTC)

UK Parliament - Members' Names Data Platform
I note the above discussion. I don't see that anyone in the discussion has troubled to identify the source of the disputed data; it seems to be being discussed as "raw data" like some sort of weird alien.

The service under discussion is the Members' Names Data Platform. It is published by the UK Parliament. It is termed a beta service, and has been so termed for the last 7 years. Of the service, Parliament says: "Data stored on the platform will be correct to the best of our knowledge".

The service has been designed expressely by UK Parliament to disseminate data. The UK Parliament stands by the data it disseminates. The UK Parliament is a reliable source: its information is disseminated by a team of professional librarians.

I do not see that there is any good argument, given the credentials, the express purpose and the express undertaking of data quality, that wikipedia should treat this service as anything other than a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It may just be reliable, but that's not the only issue, not by a long shot. So would a birth certificate, yet those are not allowed. Tax records are probably reliable, or court documents (nobody ever lies at court, right?). The main issue is that this is a primary source, and BLP rules are very clear, and very strict about the use of such sources when it comes to birthdates. In most cases, there needs to be coverage in multiple, reliable, secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 03:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This is not a public document akin to a birth certificate or a court document. It is not, for me, settled that a publication of the UK Parliament Library & Information Service is not a secondary source - LIS is clearly distinct from the legislature as well as from the MPs. WP:BLPPRIMARY points to WP:PRIMARY which talks in terms of "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them". There is, per the discussion at that page, no original research being done here. No interpretation. "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." This is the case here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:BLPDOB says Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. It's raw data, hidden away on an obscure part of the website that displays the data as an XML file, and I doubt many MPs are even aware it exists considering how many hoops need to be jumped through to even see the data. That's practically the opposite of "widely published". It isn't published on a page such as this which every MP has, or some similar profile page. FDW777 (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that unless there are multiple reliable sources, the dates of birth are not "widely published" and should generally not be included on BLPs. We should err on the side of privacy for the personal information of living individuals. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're not seeing a good argument it's because you're not looking for one. I quoted WP:BLPPRIVACY, so that reliability is necessary but not sufficient for inclusion, and the case of one of the data (for Maskey) being incorrect. On the other hand, I was unable to identify how the data were gathered and "it's part of a beta service" (even though the UK government seems to describe almost all of its website this way sometimes) doesn't fill me with confidence. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In the case of politicians, if it were only found in a single government profile, which is easily accessible, then I would say go for it. Politicians have a measure of control over the information put in those, but a source like this is unacceptable, not necessarily for reliability reasons (those too), but for reasons of demonstrating that it's ok with the subject if we publish it. This is one of many reasons why we need to be careful with primary sources, and in reality, when using primary sources like this we're actually doing the work of investigative reporters, or secondary sources. In other words, original research, which can often lead to misinterpretations and even synth. There are larger issues at play when it comes to BLP rules. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv actually that’s where you were wrong because I noticed several of them were wrong for example even Keir Starmer himself had the 20th september (my birthday lol) instead of 2 September as his birthday. This source is totally unreliable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Hopefully this means case closed as we have conclusively decided it is not a reliable source. If you want my recommendation for better sources use their Twitter feeds if applicable and I know of a great source that’s a book called The Women MPs 1997-2019 by Iain Dale and Jacqui Smith about female MPs which of course is reliable, with one of them being a former MP herself, albeit an expense-grabbing one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Twitter is almost never a reliable source by itself, especially for DOBs. See, for example, the discussion two sections below. BLP rules are very clear, and very strict about the level of sourcing needed for DOBs. (ie: not just reliable, but multiple reliable sources). It's nice to have DOBs --when they are very readily available-- but they are really not necessary for understanding the subject. It's a special interest item, and as such there will always be people with special interest in them (numerologists for example), but in the grand scheme of things, like all special interest items, it's trivia. Great for questions on Jeopardy, but not really necessary to define the subject. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * This idea that dates of birth are "trivia" is such a bizarre argument to me. Just because some people are not interested in something does not make it trivia, and dates of birth are just as significant as places of birth, parents, spouses, etc. Those writing about public figures may well want to know the age when someone became, say, a member of parliament; without a DOB, that can only be an approximation. The vast majority of information included in articles is not strictly "necessary to define the subject". It is odd and rather disconcerting to see people treating a date of birth as some kind of ultra-private thing; I obviously agree that digging through birth certificates etc. would not be appropriate, but where the information is on an official parliamentary website, however out-of-the-way the section of the website may be, it's out there. A parliamentary website clearly does not come under the terms of WP:BLPPRIMARY.


 * That said, this particular source clearly has some issues. The difficulty of accessing it is a valid point, but I would say the official nature of it counterweighs that to a degree. The accuracy issues are concerning, and it seems obvious that a better source would override this one. I also note that the House of Commons profiles on their website appear to include no personal information whatsoever in any capacity, so that better option is not necessarily available. As for demonstrating that it's OK with the subjects that this information is out there, the fact that plenty of MPs' birthdates are not included in this data is a pretty clear sign that it's possible for them not to have this information listed if they prefer it that way, and consequently that the information is drawn from what they themselves have provided. Accordingly, "it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" (WP:BLPPRIVACY). The source seems OK to me to be used, though with caution. If further clarification is needed, though, I wonder whether an email to the House of Commons website team may be useful. I'm sure they can clarify where they're drawing this data from.


 * I am glad to see agreement above, though, that a standard parliamentary profile would be sufficient here. I can see the arguments against this particular source; I can't see the argument requiring additional sources where a DOB is clearly published as part of a parliamentary profile. Frickeg (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The idea is that we need o be sure that it's fine with the subject if we publish the date. If it's in an official gov. profile, then that pretty well confirms that the subject is ok with it being made public. So, I see no problem with a gov. profile. For other types of sources, like magazines for example, it's not always so clear that it was published with the subject's approval. If, on the other hand, it's published in multiple RSs, then we can reasonably assume that it is ok, or else the subject would have complained and any RS would simply redact the info. That's why multiple RSs are needed, unless there is a clear indication of approval from just one source (like gov. profiles). And the only reason I find those acceptable is that politicians have less expectancy of privacy than your average citizen.


 * In the matter of what is trivia and what is not, well, that's a matter of information type rather than personal likes. The question I'd ask myself in this case is, does the information really tell us anything about who the subject is as a person? In other words, if we omit the information, will we still be able to understand the subject? Have we really lost anything of importance? I say that because it's not such a big deal if we can't find one. It's not worth going out a digging deep into primary sources just for a number. That's what makes it trivia, not much different from weight, height, favorite color, or other statistical data. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:2406:550A:518B:973D, for your comment, which sheds more light onto how consistently unreliable the source is. I think you don't intend to @ me though, as I'm also arguing against use of the source. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The UK's Government Digital Service has a standard for developing a digital service that goes from discovery to alpha to private beta to public beta to live. There are formal procedures to go from one phase to the next. In practice, public beta is going to look a lot like live, so it is common for services to stay in public beta for a long time, possibly forever, to avoid having to jump that hurdle, and maybe also because of other advantages of not saying you've finished the work. There's also further complications with grey areas around whether something comes under this system or not, which can change as the service evolves. That's been my experience of working on a service like this. So that's why, as you say, a lot of UK government websites say they're in beta.
 * More broadly, I remain of the view that the exact day/month of birth is trivia. WP:BLPDOB is clear: we err on the side of caution with these things. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikki Boyer
External Links Section -- It appears the link to Nikki Boyer's website is not accurate or her site is no longer active. Perhaps the author should verify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmcdowell53 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the domain has been sold, the homepage indeed is not reachable, I have removed it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

2021 Ohio's 11th congressional district special election
There have been several instances of additions of political endorsements to this article cited only to a tweet or another flimsy source in direct violation of WP:ENDORSE, a policy which is in place to uphold BLP guidelines. The most egregious example just occurred, with going past WP:3RR to insert an endorsement cited only to a tweet by Nina Turner, one of the candidates in the election. (Note that I reverted these edits with respect to WP:EW exceptions on BLP-related content.) However, several other editors have been frequently adding loosely sourced or even unsourced items to this article. Bringing this to your attention for further action. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Please note that the named user has now deleted this section from this page. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This an example of when the process worked. Inappropriate material was added to the site and was called out on the Noticeboard. The material was removed in response. Go4thProsper (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Roger Friedman
I'd appreciate an experienced pair of eyes on this article. To my way of thinking, it's somewhat relentless in its negative portrayal of the subject, especially with the level of detail and the quotes appearing in the "Fox News; termination" section. I realise that if coverage of the subject is uniformly bad, then the BLP will most likely mirror that; at the same time, I have to confess I usually write about dead musicians or defunct music acts so I've got very little experience with BLPs. I've added some details just now, so it's perhaps a slight improvement compared to a few edits back.

I was alerted to this issue by IP user edits at other articles, all zeroing in on Friedman or his (non-RS) Showbiz411 website, and labelling him a gossip blogger by profession (eg, at Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the latter's talk page, and Knight and Day). Perhaps I'm wrong about the tone and detail at the BLP – again, my inexperience in this field – but if someone could look at it, that would be great. Many thanks, JG66 (talk) 05:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at it. It’s not well written but is well sourced. The page does lean negative but it appears that is more a result of his checkered employment history than an organized campaign to weigh down his page with negative information. The solution to the balance issue would be to research and cite noteworthy positive references. I’m not going to take the time to do it, but interested parties are encouraged to see what more is out there that meets WP:NOTEWORTHY standards Go4thProsper (talk) 03:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Giovanni Niubo
SPA account User:Fabi121302, keeps pushing a POV and and pr polishing the tex, since he created the article about this person, like the manipulation of this person birthdate, as in the IMDB and Wikipedia his birthday is constantly changing, from 1996 to 1998, to change a second time from 1998 to 1999, and then from being born in 1999 on the 2017 IMDB page, to being born in 2000 in a change made by him in 2018 to his English Wikipedia bio, to be changed again from 2000 to 2002, and now in the IMDB his last birthday is 2004. The fact that this user User:Fabi121302 praticaly only edits this article leaves the change that he is either the person of the article or someone close to him. This fact is proven as User:Fabi121302 uploaded File:Giovanni Niubo Freak Night 2015.jpg claiming to be his work and that it "previously published (...) on my instagram, @GiovanniNiubo. As the file has OTRS permission id 2016010310011334, this is further proof of what i stated about the relationship of either the same subject or someone close to him. Tm (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , looks like already does have an eye on it, he furthermore nominated it for WP:PROD CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, i´ve already seen that he made some of his edits, and i have to say that i´ve learned something new today, as i did not knew that IMDB is not considered a reliable source of BLP. Thank you again for the speedy answer and please excuse me if, unwillingly, i did something wrong as, albeit i have 16 years of edits in Wikimedia projects, english wikipedia is not my home wiki. Tm (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , nothing wrong at it all, you are welcome. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Caesar DePaço
This was raised recently on this noticeboard, but I think we need more eyes on it. The article subject is a Portuguese businessman who is the subject of a political controversy involving alleged links to a far-right party and his appointment as a US consul for Cape Verde. I previously semi-protected the article. An account who on the Portuguese Wikipedia has identified as his lawyer has twice blanked content; I've semi-protected again and asked them to discuss on the talk page and to not make legal threats, see User talk:Ruimbarreira1411. The article is up for deletion on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Fences &amp;  Windows  20:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , "fight about references in wikipedia" already in the Portuguese media: https://www.asemana.publ.cv/Caso-de-extrema-direita-Consul-de-Cabo-Verde-Caesar-DePaco-briga-com-Wikipedia CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I have substantially improved this article in the Portuguese language wikipedia, only to receive more votes to delete, including one to nuke the article and start from zero. The process has become very political, unfortunately, and I can no longer explain the actions of some of those involved. I've received warnings for even discussing this in multiple places in portuguese wikipedia. I am likely to escalate this soon. Kranke133 (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Tulio Capriles Mendoza
In the article TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA there are several incorrect references use as “realible public sources”. The books cited are not in ANY way related or mention the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA. So by mistake they were use in this article as citations. Both text and citations should be removed.

The text says...”Tulio Mendoza is the publisher of the Spanish-language newspaper El Siglo, who formerly served as Venezuela's Minister of Public Information under the presidency of Hugo Chávez.[1] Reference #1 “ Carroll, Rory (25 February 2014). Comandante : myth and reality in Venezuela. New York, NY: Penguin. ISBN 978-0143124887”,

The reference is incorrect and misleading to the fact that the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA is NEVER mention in this book. Mr. Rory Carrol never talks about newspaper EL SIGLO. Moreover, after carefullly reviwing the book, the name TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA not only does never appears in the whole book but it never talks about a minister of public information at all or relating to HUGO CHAVEZ.

Moreover, the name Hugo Chavez is synonimous to dictatorship, criminal, and against human rights among many bad connotations to be related with. It can be libellous.

The text in the article TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA says....”Unafraid to use the information if opponents didn’t back down or join the team, he became known in Venezuela’s political circles as a ruthless campaign operative. His feared techniques were often referred to as the “Tulio guillotine."[3] Another incorrect reference is #3 Young, Jeff C. (August 2007). Hugo Chavez : leader of Venezuela. Greensboro, NC: Morgan Reynolds Publishing. ISBN 978-1599350684.

After reviwing the book by Mr. Jeff Young, again the book NEVER mentions neither TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA nor the term “Tulio Guillotine”. So again this reference is UNSOURCE by mistake.

According to this information provided, we suggest this ARTICLE MUST BE REVIEW INMEDIATELLY, if the reference are not confirmed by the author to mention TULIO CAPRILES MENDOZA the whole text is 100% unsource. In addition, due to the fact is relating a person to a very bad image of a politician as Hugo Chavez is also potentially libellous. According to the Wikipedia policies, unsource information should be removed immediately.


 * Please see my comment on the article talk page. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 16:57, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Ok, yes. This is indeed distressing. As far as I can tell by searching google books, not one of the five sources even mention this person's name even once. I'm not sure about source 2, because it's a dead link, but none of the books do. Further more, a quick google search shows no reliable sources on this person. I don't know if blanking the entire article would be a good choice. Probably best to just put it up for deletion. Zaereth (talk) 06:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I left a message at the talk page as well. Although, according to our article, this person is long dead and is not subject to BLP, I still think another set of eyes would be helpful. Unless I'm missing something, this is a completely unsourced article making some very bold claims. That is, there are some good sources on Hugo Chavez yet not a single one mentions the subject's name. I'm not sure if this is for real, or a hoax, or just someone with a grudge, or maybe I'm missing something entirely. Zaereth (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been created using falsified references in 2015 by User:Smatkinson721 (who stopped editing in 2016), and despite efforts to correct the record by users claiming to be the subject nobody tried to verify the sources until now. I've tagged it for speedy deletion as an attack page.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Fences and windows. I was beginning to wonder if it was just me, and if not, why wasn't anyone else seeing it? Good to know I'm not going out of my mind. Zaereth (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I became aware of this as a result of seeing the speedy deletion nomination that made. My first thought was that this might be an attack page, but it wasn't immediately obvious, and since it had existed for over five years there was no hurry, and it should go to AfD. However, before declining the speedy deletion, I decided to search for relevant information. I was astonished at how little support I could find for any of the aspects of the article that I checked. Then, quite by accident, I discovered this discussion, which added more confirmation that the article largely consists of claims which are unverifiable. It is absolutely appalling that several times over the years one or more people have tried to get this problem dealt with, and their concerns have never been dealt with. Unfortunately, this is all too often the situation when victims of libel in Wikipedia try to get things put right: nobody takes their concerns seriously. I have deleted the article, having decided after all to accept the speedy nomination from Fences and windows. However, this raises the question of whether the rest of the editing from the creator of this article is to be trusted. I have briefly looked at a couple of edits from that editor, and I found two accusations of criminality in there, so checking for verifiability is really needed. However, I have to go offline very soon, so I won't be able to get onto it now. If anyone else reading this is willing to look into it, that will be great. JBW (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks JBW, I thought this discussion was linked to from the talk page: apologies for leaving you to find it. I wondered about the rest of their edits too and already checked several pages. One on a Saudi bank I tagged as needing verification of sources. Another large edit elsewhere was already reverted a couple of years ago as misuse of a primary source - they seemed keen on using US government documents. Their edits were mainly about perceived enemies of the US, especially allegations of terrorism, and they usually added several kbs at a time, unusual for a new editor. I will look again. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Cristina Garcia (politician) lead claims she promotes violence against Asians
Is this sentence, " At one point, Garcia reportedly exclaimed, "This makes me feel like I want to punch the next Asian person I see in the face." Perez confirmed the incident did take place but that no formal action was ever taken against Garcia for her words.[39]" sufficient to support the following in the lead of the article, "She also supports discrimination against Asians, and has threatened to commit random acts of violence against Asians.". This was recently added by here [] and restored by the same editor after an IP editor removed the statement. My feeling is this a significant BLP violation as the Politico source for the claim [] reports it an unverified claim while the statement in the lead puts it in wikivoice and reads as a call to violence. Springee (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have removed the statement and asked the Editor to provide a reliable source for it. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "unverified claim"? According to that Politico article, "“This makes me feel like I want to punch the next Asian person I see in the face,” according to sources present at the meeting and other legislative sources who were told about the comments in the immediate aftermath." No where did that article say that her comment was unverified. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "According to sources" means that Politico is trusting that those sources are correct. Note that Politico didn't put the claim in "Politico-voice", instead they say "according to sources".  This is why I say it isn't verified.  The way it's handled in the body of the Wiki-article is correct, "reportedly exclaimed".  It was added to the lead as a statement of fact in wiki-voice.  Questions of DUE weight for the lead aside, the statement in the lead is not supported by the source.  I think CommanderWaterford's handling was correct.  Springee (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They attributed to their sources. More than one. That does not mean they are unverified. You do not know how they went about checking their sources to comment on that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see why you feel my choice of words was poor. It is more than reasonable to say that if the report claims "sources" then, even if they don't say who the sources are, they feel it was corroborated.  I probably should have said, unnamed sources or similar.  Regardless, the big problem, the statement in Wikivoice was addressed.  Springee (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Dhananjay Munde
There is not an intractable dispute at this time but I am not sure where else to seek guidance on this article.

A serious allegation was made against the subject and retracted over the last two months. A quick google search shows numerous articles, albeit cookie-cutter reporting on allegation and then subsequent retraction.

My reading of BLP is that since he is a public figure this allegation should be documented. However, I am not sure if sustained coverage exists and whether the lack of sustained coverage would mitigate inclusion. Slywriter (talk) 15:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, lack of sustained coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources does indeed mitigate inclusion, as explained in WP:WELLKNOWN. Allegations like thi can have very serious real-world consequences, and we don't report them unless there is a conviction upheld in a court of law (see: WP:BLPCRIME), or the allegation has been so widely reported that there is just no point in trying to protect the subject's right to be innocent until proven guilty. I don't see that level of coverage here, so I removed it from the article. We don't report unsubstantiated allegations unless there is a compelling, overriding public-need to do so. Zaereth (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It was widely reported in the Indian press, though the allegation was withdrawn on 22 January: . However, since then the sister of the accuser, who is his partner with whom he has children, also raised charges against him and is seeking custody of their children: . It may not be such a flash-in-the-pan story, though I'm not sure it should yet be included.  Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd simply recommend proceeding carefully. Probably best to wait and see, but I'd also consider that our article, here on English Wikipedia, is very short. If included we need to give it the proper weight by a preponderance of all sources (not just what we have in our article), so that's the next hurdle we have to look forward to. Personally, I'd wait and see just how big it gets so we can make a good assessment. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

vernon coleman
I must agree with the comment *everything about this article is distastfull" it brings wikipeadia into disrepute and i will not again use wikipeadia. the writer obviously is not impartial. probably not bad enough for vernon to sue wikipeadia but id remove it if i were you and ban the writer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.28.42 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is about Vernon Coleman. The article is semi-protected and describes him as an AIDS denier and conspiracy theorist. It survived AfD twice, last year as no consensus: Articles for deletion/Vernon Coleman (2nd nomination). There's a discussion on the talk page. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It is constantly under pressure from his youtube viewers who think he is a nice chap, as he could be, but that us wikieds are a nasty spiteful bunch. If they only had any wp:rs reliable sources. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 22:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for additional input: Andy Ngo - lead and criticism section
The Andy Ngo article seems to forever have an issue with balancing criticism of the subject. A criticism section was recently added and the last paragraph of the lead has significantly expanded with a long list of criticisms. Additional editor input with an eye towards neutrality would be helpful. [] Springee (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, are those issues violations of the WP:BLP Policy ?! If not I think better place to discuss this would be over here WP:NPOVN, Best,CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically the disproportionate weight to the criticisms against Ngo in the lede violate the first two points on BLP policy (tone and balance). The lede cannot avoid some mention that Ngo is controversial and the body will of course explain this, but the lede is not the place to air out all the laundry if the article is to maintain a generally neutral tone and balanced approach. --M asem (t) 18:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , totally agree on this. The lede is by far too unbalanced and also too long. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this should have been posted there as well. I hadn't intended this to be a discussion here so much as a request for eyes on the article in question.  Since Masem replied with specific advice here I may wait and see if more people comment here.  If not I will post a notice as NPOVN as well.  Springee (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masem. The lede is supposed to be just a brief summary of the article; a summary of a summary, meaning very sparse on details. In the lede, all we need is the very gist of it. Ngo seems to show up here enough that he might as well just set up permanent residence. Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a case where it would be helpful if we could have something like a wiki court with a wiki judge who could help evaluate arguments on both sides. In theory RfC are just that but they work best when the question is relatively binary.  In a case like this it seems numbers just swamp the discussion that is that.  Still, if we had such a court would their wiki voluteer time be best invested in an article about someone like Ngo or fixing articles about more significant political figures or even topics that aren't political at all - we still have those right? Springee (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The wikicourt idea is an interesting one. I had to sleep on that. It seems that the only thing we have resembling a court is arbcom, whih is more like a supreme court. But, seeing how that works, I'd avoid that like the plague unless there is just no other option. It seems to me that, somewhere between here and there should be an intermediate step, which in the real world would typically be mediation. We have WP:Mediation, but that really set up to resolve user issues rather than content disputes, but I would agree that we probably could use something like that for circumstances such as this. Much beyond that, I think we'd have a hard time selling the concept of a wikijudge to the community, that has all out authority to make decisions in these cases. Might as well create another arbcom. Although ... a wikijury, maybe? Nahhhh. Probably wouldn't sell either. Still, I do think we'd benefit in having another step in the DS process, somewhere between DSN and arbitration, such as mediation. Just my 2 cents. (And by the way, I'm not trying to bag on the people at arbcom. It's just a rather screwed up process and they really have a limited number of options.) Zaereth (talk) 18:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Yeah, I was thinking about help in cases where Arbcom is way overkill.  As an example, A source is added to an article in early Nov 2020.  In late Nov the content is challenged.  The discussions end with 4:2 in favor of inclusion but neither side convinced.  Late Jan a new editor again challenges the text.  More editors join in the discussion and now we are at 4:5 against inclusion.  What happens to the text?  If we decide the text became "status quo" then the current 4:5 is no consensus and the text stays.  However, if we decide the less than 2 month window was just a pause in the discussion while waiting for more editors to weigh in, then the text never had consensus and should be removed per NOCON.  Even with a RfC we have the same issue if the close is NOCON.  If the time laps were 2 days we would all agree that was the same discussion.  if the time laps were 2 years we would all agree the content became part of status quo.  Which side of the line is "almost 2 months" on?  This is a case where it would be helpful to have a core of editors who can help, consistently interpret the rules.  Springee (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections for biographies are very bad idea (see WP:CRIT). While such sections may make sense for a piece of art, a book, a play, or a movie, and such like -- for a person the DUE RS bad (and the good) belongs in the context of their life and work. (Does anyone know of any RS encyclopedic model, outside Wikipedia, that would have a whole section of biographical criticism?) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are rare (if any, I can't think of one) instances where a biography should have a whole section devoted to criticism. I agree with Jimbo's quote in the link your provided. Number 1.) it's just bad writing, 2.) it does become a troll magnet, without a doubt, and 3.) it creates an imbalance within the article itself, which is all kinds of NPOV problems.


 * On that third one, people may often have a hard time grasping how that can be, so I'll use the UPS model. When the workers at UPS load a plane, they have to carefully balance that load. Too much weight on one side or the other, and the whole plane can go down. So, they load their cargo into big, special, "plane-shaped" containers they call "igloos", but we can think of them as sections. They put these igloos on a scale, and fill it up until it hit's a certain mark, regardless of whether it's a thousand packages or just one. That way, when they load them on the plane everything is balanced and the plane can fly safely.


 * Criticism sections are like taking all the heavy packages and putting them into one igloo, without regard to weight. It throws the whole article off balance. And in most cases I will say the same for controversy sections as well. That is often used as a synonym for criticism, a space for dirty laundry, or any dispute a person might have no matter how small. (The word "controversy" actually has a very specific meaning, referring to a large public debate surrounding an issue ie: the Watergate scandal was not a controversy; the big public debate surrounding it was.) Criticism may very well be due in many instances, but lumping it all in one place creates an imbalance by giving undue weight to it. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Masrat Zahra
Since the subject has been covered massively just for one event i-e Arrest of masrat zahra, It is a WP:BLP1E, i have had a edit war on this but in good faith until i realised that this is a WP:BLP1E. So before i nominate it for deletion, wanted to ask does it qualify as one? Should it be nominated or not because everyday in India many journalists get arrested doesn't mean everyone is put up on wikipedia. Also we can redirect it to- Arrest of masrat zahra. --  Jammumylove  Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 17:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * it is completely weird. She has two awards in her credit and you say it is BLP1E. Strange. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * she's no way notable because she was UAPA accused. She is notable as a notable photojournalist who has won multiple known awards, and received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and thus managing to meet our GNG criteria. Get some facts dear. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason i've posted it here is to seek comments from other's as well. why do you always come up on questions related to her? Also my reason to post it is mentioned there, there are several other journalists who have recieved awards. Moreover she hasn't recieved multiple major awards she's just recieved one (Anja Niedringhaus Photojournalism Award) which was primarily for the same event (arrest), Peter mackler one isn't notable. I firmly believe this is a BLP1E but still here to ask from other's, also why would you tag other's to come and defend is very interesting.--  Jammumylove  Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 18:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, this is the noticeboard for reporting possible violations of the BLP Policy (see header of the board) not for content disputes (see WP:DISPUTE) or reporting Edit-Wars. Where do you see this kind of violation, ? If you want to ask for Deletion you are of course free to do, please check WP:BEFORE and WP:AFDHOWTO. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up, but I just clarified that the editor has erred without noticing what this forum is meant for. Thanks anyways. ─ The Aafī on Mobile   (talk)|undefined  18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I always hate to just say, "This is not what this board is for" and leave it at that. My personal feeling is that people should feel welcome to bring issues here. Even if it's not the right place, we can at least point them in the right direction or, in simple questions like this, sometimes it's easy enough just to answer them.


 * To Jammumylove, the answer to your question is no, this is not a case of BLP1E. This article will easily survive a deletion request, so there is no point going over there and wasting their time. That she was arrested is just a small part of her career, as it is for many journalists even right here in the US. They often wear it as a badge of honor, showing that they are standing up for their belief in journalistic integrity in the face of oppression, and I think that's how it comes off here. Either way, though, this article doesn't have a WP:SNOWBALL's chance of getting deleted. Zaereth (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. but what my main concern is that apart from the arrests she doesn't have any other notability(because there are many journalists in jammu and kashmir who get arrested daily because this is a disputed territory, does it mean everyone should have a standalone article), although my confusion is cleared on BLP1E one. The award ( anja niedringhaus) was offered for the same reason, she was arrested for the pictures and got this award for the same. so it is basically a single event. --  Jammumylove  Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That may have been the catalyst that started it, but it has since bloomed beyond that arrest. She didn't win awards for being arrested, and really, the level of coverage she has gotten goes far beyond that single event. You are certainly welcome to nominate it for deletion if you want. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but having seen a lot of deletion discussions, I don't foresee this as getting deleted. Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, Thanks for the clarification. this is what i was looking out for. i didn't AfD this because i wanted to seek expert advice before doing this. Looks meeting WP:GNG. --  Jammumylove  Talk to me or CHECK MY RECENT WORK 19:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Ray Stevens
User BarryRay2 appears to be very close to the subject, and is inserting original unsourced content.


 * I deleted that, boogidad, boogidad. (Sorry. A little Ray Stevens humor.) In situations like this it's ok to just delete it on sight, preferably giving a good explanation of why and the relevant policies. Zaereth (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Lika Osipova
24.218.156.31 keeps adding dubious uncited information about a billionaire in the article about Lika Osipova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy has a great username (talk • contribs) 17:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I left him a message on his talk page - the IP had been blocked a couple of days ago for Vandalism. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * If she really did date someone wirth over 2 billion dollars it would have been easy to find a source covering that, obviously fake.--70.27.244.104 (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Include the names of members of an activist group?
I'm working on an article for a political group that has received a lot of RS over the past couple years. Many names of the group's members have been published. Should I include them in the article, for example in a section called "members"? At least one has a Wikipedia page. The government where they live is a bit unpredictable. I'm leaving out the name of the group for the moment. Possibly (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * That depends on a lot of factors. Number 1, I'd make sure the sources are of the utmost reliability. Nothing of even marginal quality. Then, I would only consider publishing names of people who are notable enough that they have their own article. We usually try to respect the privacy of otherwise private citizens, unless they are notable. (For example, we don't include the names of spouses and children of notable people, or non-notable victims of crimes, etc...) Above all, please see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. We're not a directory where people can go look up group members like a phone book. Information needs to be of an encyclopedic nature, meaning a section solely about members would seem highly inappropriate without some really good context to show the reader why this info is necessary to understand the subject. Zaereth (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm largely with Zaereth except that I could perhaps imagine including the name of non-notable leaders or founder, if there is no dispute over this role including by the people themselves, and it's well covered in secondary (not primary) sources. Especially in cases where this role is significant e.g. groups with a formal leadership structures or where the founder's story is seen as a significant part of the history. I don't think it's that important though so would also be fine with leaving them out, although it's not that uncommon we include the names of non notable CEOs and political party leaders and similar. The only real advantage is writing probably seems a little cleaner when we are mentioning these people e.g. it was founded by a member of the indigenous tribe C after she witnessed the destruction wrought by illegal loggers vs it was founded by A, a member of the..... Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I would suggest also looking at this recent BLP/N thread related to figures in the Proud Boys just in the last month on the same issue about naming otherwise previously non-public figure individuals that are "now" known. . The general advise from that follows from Zaereth's idea, that unless they were already notable, naming them now is now within BLP. --M asem (t) 21:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)