Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive331

Chloe Melas
Hi Fences  &amp;  Windows.

I was expecting problems because that´s my experience with Wikipedia.

After supposedly, the matter of CNN's Chloe Melas fabrication of 2018 Morgan Freeman harassment report being exposed at Spanish spoken media sufficiently discussed, so the conversation been archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1016980354#Chloe_Melas

Now, our friend Marquardtika that made the original flagging has erased all the refrences to Melas´fraud claiming "yikes, this is a major WP:BLP issue with dubious sourcing"

On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo (es) that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman.[21] Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation.[22]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chloe_Melas&action=history

Problem is that I could not find all his arguments, proofs, links, etcetera, to make his case. He kept quiet when the matter it was publicly discussed here. And now he erase those information falsely claiming "dubious sourcing."

I´m gonna revert to the previous editing, not made by me. But I publicly put the matter on the table. To fix it or to show the hypocrisy of a supposed way to manage editing here at Wikipedia. Remember I record all.

This is not an answer to all the question you raised, including the false charge of “incivility” by me. Because what I did it was answering to the incivility of your fellow wikipedians like Nil Einne that even erased the image of the tweet by newspaper El Mundo, that it was erased by the pressure of CNN. By no reasonable reason. It takes no brains to know who pays him for that action.

Or about the "COI" issue. After showing my "debate" with Jimmy Wales, in which I pointed out to him that you, the community, never flagged the editing by him of his own entry but it was done by an external person, seems "COI" are in the eye of Wikipedia beholder. But I will answer about that too.

But I must quote myself on what I wrote to Wales, because Nil and Marquardrdtika prove my point: '''I´s not about your vanity of believing being the sole founder of Wikipedia or about your private life. It´s about Wikipedia entries not vandalized by trolls but manipulated by Wikispin-doctors "to fix history" or "please" a lover, friend, associate..."'''

https://twitter.com/Tomoo_Terada/status/943967264721784832?s=20

It's neither an answer to all the lies that were said against me, for instance, claiming the falsity that publish with Gabriel García Márquez Foundation is “self-publishing,” but I could not answer then for being outnumbered. I'm tagging all those that I could recognize were part of that former conversation. Maineartists Zaereth M asem

I decided to not answer back then as the conversation it was already archived, but as it still going on, I´m going to answer you about it, point by point.

Tells a lot that the erasing is being done in Chloe Melas entry, not Morgan Freeman´s. Gee, the powers that be really protect that corrupt woman, here, there and everywhere.

P.S. I correct and sign it. Please C.Fred can you explain me how to decide the place of the post on this board? https://web.archive.org/web/20210808231354/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 Aug 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Tomoo Terada


 * I think it's definitely a BLP issue to say "On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo (es) that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman. Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation." So...a blogger accused her of being a racist liar? Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. This is a serious claim. Is the person/outlet making the claim even noteworthy? Did Melas get to respond to this charge? Marquardtika (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)


 * It appears that a writer named Tomoo Terada accused Melas of racism and lying. Now, a Wikipedia editor with the user name Tomoo Terada is trying to add these accusations to the article. Maybe this should be at the WP:COIN noticeboard instead. I think the edits are a WP:BLP violation, but even if you think the edits aren't, the author of the accusations certainly shouldn't be the editor adding them to the article. Marquardtika (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

LOL is so egregious the hypocrisy of this guy Marquardtika he does just part of the protection some at Wikipedia guaranteed to Chloe Melas.

As anyone can read at the original CNN report, Chloe Melas was a supposed "victim" by Morgan Freeman and the co-author of the article "exposing" him. If Wikipedia don´t stress on that then has a double standard on COI. https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/24/entertainment/morgan-freeman-accusations/index.html When CNN broke the story on Morgan Freeman, fabricated by this poor woman, it “strangely” was erased from her Wikipedia entry how privileged her upbringing had been. What Diana Davison talks in the video, it's on the erased information on Melas privilege. Clearly it was done to support the then ongoing media narrative that the privileged one it was Morgan Freeman (a contemporary of Emmett Till, that had to work a lot to get what he has). Nobody has explained why the erasing on Melas privilege. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UFoqjzHN8Y "On December 4, 2018, El Mundo reported on a post on the Red Etica blog published by Fundación Gabo (es) that accused Melas of racism and fabricating the report on Freeman. Two years later, La Opinión also noted this accusation" only expose what sources published. It's not on Wikipedia to "white knighting" Melas if claims to be a NPV source of information.

The post was published by then named Fundación Gabriel García Márquez para el Nuevo Periodismo Iberoamericano now Fundación Gabo. It was created by the Nobel Prize winner. https://latamjournalismreview.org/articles/journalistic-foundation-fnpi-of-colombia-changes-its-name-to-fundacion-gabo/ The post is publicly available to anyone, knowing Spanish or not, to read. The fact is, in more than three years neither CNN and Chloe Melas has challeged it, even if they knew about it.

https://fundaciongabo.org/es/etica-periodistica/blogs/dando-luz-un-fraude-periodistico-morgan-freeman-y-cnn

It had an enormous impact in Spanish spoken media. These are only some headlines, all from Spanish spoken media that has entries at English Wikipedia. Of course Chloe Melas and CNN had any chance to challenge it through a rebuttal, a lawsuit. But they prefered to do undue pressures instead of a denial. The BLP claim had to be done more than three years ago. So, for that reason I doubt any sincerity in the worries for poor Chloe Melas good nameUser:Meters/SPIs. SPAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Mundo_(Spain)

"The accusations of harassment against Morgan Freeman come to nothing, who now restores his reputation?" https://www.elmundo.es/cultura/cine/2018/12/04/5c056c7821efa01b378b4737.html SPAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Peri%C3%B3dico_de_Catalunya "Morgan Freeman, victim of a montage"

https://www.elperiodico.com/es/extra/20181206/morgan-freeman-victima-de-un-montaje-7188203 SPAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Pa%C3%ADs Morgan Freeman: "The only mishap I've had in my work has been spraining an ankle" "When last year a CNN report accused him of sexual harassment, the company terminated his contract and did not resume it even after the accusations were dismantled when several holes were found in the CNN report."

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/09/06/icon/1567801014_563365.html

---	PERU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Comercio_(Peru)

"Geoffrey Rush wins defamation lawsuit and gets a millionaire payment" "-Antecedent- Rush's case is reminiscent of Morgan Freeman's. In May 2018, the website of CNN's US parent published a text with the title "Women accuse Morgan Freeman of misconduct and harassment." According to its authors –the journalists Chloe Melas and An Phung–, 16 people affirmed that there was a pattern of behavior of the winner of the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for "Million Dollar Baby" (2004). Morgan has always said that he is innocent.

The accusations have come to nothing. Even the Mexican writer Tomoo Terada, in a text published on the Ethics Network of the Gabriel García Márquez Foundation for New Ibero-American Journalism, questioned the complaint by stressing that the accusations lacked evidence and substantiation, and that the evidence presented was edited. and taken out of context. So far, CNN has not retracted."

https://elcomercio.pe/luces/geoffrey-rush-gana-demanda-difamacion-obtiene-pago-millonario-noticia-ecpm-638144-noticia/ --- MEXICO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adela_Micha "The fraud behind the alleged sexual harassment of Morgan Freeman" https://www.la-saga.com/entretenimiento/el-fraude-tras-los-supuestos-acosos-sexuales-de-morgan-freeman/ --- SPAIN

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotten_Tomatoes (Tomatazos is Rotten Tomatoes for Spain)

"Morgan Freeman: False Sexual Harassment Accusation Shows How #MeToo Movement Works"

https://www.tomatazos.com/articulos/355100/Morgan-Freeman-la-falsa-acusacion-en-su-contra-sobre-acoso-sexual-demuestra-como-funciona-el-movimiento-MeToo

- SPAIN

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

(I link to the Catalan language version, to show how I have caused Chloe Melas to be "attacked" in Spanish, Catalan, Portuguese. I´m proud of that)

Ignacio Martínez de Pisón is one of the main novelists of Spain.

"In my article "Reputations" of November 23, I reflected on the risk of defenselessness in the face of certain sensational accusations and gave as an example the case of actor Morgan Freeman, victim according to all indications of a journalistic fraud with racist overtones."

https://www.lavanguardia.com/opinion/20190118/454188637199/dues-comedies.html

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

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

"A 2018 marked by sex scandals"

"CNN journalist Chloe Melas who decided to fabricate a web of rumors to tarnish Freeman's image. As it was noticed, of the 16 alleged people who had accused him, 14 were anonymous and 2 ended up admitting that they had no problem with the artist.

In an article published by the Red Etica portal of the Gabriel García Márquez Foundation for New Ibero-American Journalism, Tomoo Terada wrote that the proof Melas gave was a video intentionally edited so that a joke by the author (sic) would be out of context."

https://www.diariolibre.com/revista/cine/un-2018-marcado-por-los-escandalos-sexuales-LF11726386

- ARGENTINA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9rica_24

(In this tweet there´s a clip in which Argentinian journalist Eduardo Feinmann in dialogue with lawyer Francisco Oneto talk about how Morgan Freeman was innocent. What I don´t know is why they both say there were 44 accusers)

https://twitter.com/RamiroNLeone/status/1074803420563951616?s=20

- CHILE

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

"Accusation against Morgan freeman was "journalistic fraud" (behind paywall)

http://impresa.lasegunda.com/2018/12/04/A/1K3GROK2/843GRPAN

---

ETCETERA ETCETERA ETCETERA

Why English-spoken people has never heard about all this? Ask people like Nil Einne Marquardtika Meters Hey, that´s a "personal attack?" I don´t think so. Just saying they make clear why act like they do.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs) 03:07 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Tomoo Terada (talk) 03:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Tomoo Terada


 * To reduce confusion, I'd note I cannot delete any image as I'm not an admin on any Wikimedia project. I may be able to delete a link but I'm fairly sure I did not do that since I still see a dead link on the article talk page. I probably did ask for the image of the tweet to be deleted somewhere since it was a copyright violation, just as I would for any other clear copyright violation. The fact that I had to ask does of course mean someone else, someone agreed with my reasoning. As I suspect I explained at the time, we would require a copy of the tweet at an archival service like archive.org or something, or a report on a tweet at some reliable source before we can consider using a deleted tweet. We cannot host copyright violations here on Wikipedia, if the tweet was authored by CNN then only CNN can release it under a free licence. We do not allow NFCC for delete tweets to be used as source.  Also if CNN is supposed to pay me can someone tell them that? I have no contacts at CNN and indeed I do not know any journalist period. I'm fairly sure if I were contact CNN's email contact and tell them Tomoo Terada says you have to pay me they probably just ignore me or send a generic response.  BTW, I'm fairly sure I never said anything about El Mundo not being a reliable source. I may have said the specific El Mundo source is not useful  sufficient since all it seems to say is that some blogger has made some claims, that is of course a fairly different thing from saying El Mundo is not reliable.  I would note that this seems to be a classic case of "okay but then were at the sources?". This was allegedly a big deal in the Spanish media. Why then are we even arguing over Gabriel García Márquez Foundation when there must be hundreds of other Spanish sources? From what I can tell, so far there have only been 2 or maybe 3 RS so far, and mostly what they seem to do is report that someone wrote a blog.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC) 11:56, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment, I realised my comment above on the tweet failed to mention an important point. It is very unlikely we can use this tweet without a reliable secondary source discussing any controversy about it. We definitely cannot call it a deleted tweet or draw any conclusions about its disappearance anywhere ourselves even though it may now be gone even if we find existence of it on an archival service. My point above was more intended as general comment on how we can cite a deleted tweet in those few cases we can cite tweets directly. Generally cases where are using them as WP:SPS or those very very very rare cases when the publisher can be considered an RS (which may apply to CNN but it's very unlikely we have reason to cite a tweet except for a statement from someone). Noting also given the inability to edit tweets, a lot of the time of a tweet is deleted we have to be more cautious than normal about assuming the tweet can still be taken as an RS once it's deleted. Nil Einne (talk) 09:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, as I write at Nil Einne talk page (I paid him a visit after many times he jumped at my talk page to threaten me, to set the record straight) he can be a minion of CNN, but ther´s no way to prove it or disprove it.


 * "''If you are or not in the CNN payroll, your hiding behind a pseudonym make it impossible to check it that, as any other COI you could have. In some sense, like the famous Essjay controversy, you can claim to be an expert on how COI works, when in fact CNN pays you.

A pseudonymed user like you should not need to be explained that, by definition, you´re not accountable, so you can edit in the sense that the one paying you wants you do it''."

https://web.archive.org/web/20210812013500/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nil_Einne

So any "I have no contacts at CNN" claim by this guy is just an empty speech,because of a pseudonymed user, by definition, is not accountable. So what it must be seen is to whom objectively benefits his bullying and manipulation (CNN and Melas).

---

Why all his crap to justify an image of a tweet to be deleted? Because he claimed at the Chloe Melas entry talk page that

They (Spain´s newspaper El Mundo) don't seem to clear accept the claims as true.

To which I answered:

In fact, they did, and then CNN reacted pressing and threat for the erasing of this viral tweet that it says: "A journalist from CNN fabricated evidence to accuse Morgan Freeman of sexual harassment. Now it has been known the actor is innocent, however, its image will be damaged forever."

https://web.archive.org/web/20210812055202/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chloe_Melas

The image of that tweet is the one this guy erased to hide the fact El Mundo at first stand with me, before being pressed by CNN to erase the tweet.

You can see the image of that erased tweet here, for instance, as many at Twitter take screenshots of it at the time. Of course, the copyright issue is just an excuse by manipulative guy. And, anyway, copyright doesn´t belong to CNN as this guy says. https://twitter.com/diazvillanueva/status/1070004912069767168

--- More lies, as anyone can see guy erased two sources, one of them El Mundo, that now, after seeing the light, says it´s reliable. I fought for both sources.

--- Of course, what this manipulative guy does it´s to misrepresent the facts. According to him Spanish spoken media are a lot of idiots that made a fuzz because of "someone wrote a blog." Of course not, the fuzz it was because from an supposed "inferior" language like the Spanish it was exposed the fraud done by powerful media in English (CNN).


 * Coupled with the likely COI (user name here and the reporter behind the material to be added), the fact is that this is one person's opinion about the actions of Melas. Just because reliable sources are repeating that opinion does not mean that opinion is necessarily appropriate to include, particularly as they are rather radical (that Melas fabricated evidence to try to accuse Freeman). If there were many more corroborating opinions, and ideally from newspaper op-eds than from blogs, there may be reason to include, but this seems like material that is being pushed to be added to slander Melas based on one single blog. And again, the COI factor here is very disconcerting. --M asem  (t) 04:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

M asem  from Wikipedia, that claims Forbes contributors that sign their opinions and face the consequences of sustain them are nor reliable sources, but it´s implicit believes that pseudonymed Wikipedia editors like himself are the "reliable" ones, now giving lessons on journalistic ethics. LOL.

More hypocrisy. Talking about COI why don´t say a word of Melas being a supposed "victim" and a co-author of the fabricated report exposing Freeman like a harasser?

One of the main Spain´s novelists is on record writing in an op-ed that "actor Morgan Freeman, victim according to all indications of a journalistic fraud with racist overtones."

And why CNN keep silent of being accused of fraud, and instead of a rebuttal prefered to promote an anonymous attack against the author?

User  ~Oshwah~  erased the reference to CNN retribution, I reverted his action. that it was an abuse and it was useless as I have a record of CNN retribution phrase included on the board.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210812114145/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada (talk • contribs) Tomoo Terada (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)Tomoo Terada


 * Please read our policy on reliable sources; particularly for BLPs, we need to use sources that have shown editorial oversight. It is not us, the wikipedia editors, making these statements, but making sure the sources that are making these statements represent the best possible source quality to avoid BLP issues. This is generally why things like op-eds and blog posts are not included in reliable sources because they do not have editorial oversight. And WP:BLPSPS specifically disallows those that are self-published.
 * A second key point is WP:UNDUE. After the brief issue with the matter around May-June 2018, it appears nearly all sources have been quiet about it. The most recent and most reliable piece is this Variety story from 2019 that points that some CNN staff were still in shock that their parent company used Freeman for voiceover work. That article goes on to explain how Freeman's reputation did take a hit from the accusations. But otherwise, sources have been silent on this, including if there was any real resolution to this. The last firm action of any sort I can find is as per Melas' article "CNN stood by its reporting, saying in a statement the network would "respond forcefully to any attempt by Mr. Freeman or his representatives to intimidate us from covering this important public issue."" after which there is practically no coverage of the situation further. Basically, to try to go farther that what sources say to force in one viewpoint (that Melas fraudulently accused Freeman and that she nor CNN have faced any "penalties" for that) when there are no other corroborate viewpoints on that, regardless of what works they are published in, is UNDUE, particularly on a BLP. The fact this is now an event 3 years ago and that there has been nearly no other followup reporting about it tells me that, at least regards to reliable sources, the incident was a minor factor in Freeman's career and whatever issues there were with reporting on it then aren't of any concern.
 * This is where it is important to understand that WP is not here to right great wrongs. Even if Melas had actually fabricated the report and CNN continues to defend it despite knowing this, WP cannot take that that stance in wikivoice. We need multiple reliable sources to explain in their words why this is a problem. We (wikipedia) cannot try to convince CNN to redact or take action, nor make it look like CNN was in the wrong, since we have no idea what the actual truth of the situation was. So all we can do is lay out the facts (Melas published a piece that she and several other anon. women accused Freeman of harassment; Freeman claimed he didn't but still apologized; others called out Melas for journalistic unethical issues (being too close to the issue to right fairly; CNN standing by what Melas wrote) that we best know and let the reader make their own determination of what happened. We cannot force a viewpoint that, at least in this case, Melas was fraudulent, as we simply have no idea that is true.
 * Basically, this again appears to a press to push for a very specific viewpoint that only appears in a few sources with no corroboration from others, by an editor that appears to have conflict of interest as one of the published authors of that viewpoint that has been mentioned in press, on a BLP. We simply don't include that type of content on WP. --M asem (t) 13:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , if the tweet was by El Mundo, then El Mundo is the one who owns the copyright. It's clearly not you though, so you cannot upload it here. If you don't understand this, you need to stop uploading files. I don't deal with copyright violations much, but you're free to speak to someone who deals with them more if there is any doubt over this. Nil Einne (talk) 19:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Yonason Abraham
There are various editors which continuously are breaching the guidleines to biographies of living persons,

Introducing gossip and hearsay into the bigrophay which is potentially libel.

The fact that it was reported in the JC does not make it anything more than gossip and the page contains all accurate information as I have edited it,

It is unacceptable that on a living person, people continue to remove the corrections make to comply with the guidleines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by חיים רקיד (talk • contribs)
 * The bit about his affair? The source for this is perfectly acceptable.  What needs cleaning up in that article is all the unnecessary detail about disputes in the Melbourne shul...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Frederick Gore
I am cautious about criticising what a user says on his own talk page, but his latest invective raises clear BLP problems, and possibly legal problems as well. PatGallacher (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Paponditia and PinkPantheress
has been making a number of unsourced edits to PinkPantheress which could easily be considered violations of WP:BLPPRIVACY, including adding the location of her secondary school, her mother's birth place, when she began attending university, where she attends university, and her father's nationality. Whether or not these statements are true is unimportant, as what matters is that none of them have any sources to back them up whatsoever, and are a clear violation of PinkPantheress's privacy. I reverted the edits, specifying that it was due to them being unsourced, and Paponditia returned to yet again add information about PinkPantheress's father's nationality. ben ǝʇᴉɯ 19:16, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you explain the additions to the article that you inserted without sources? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Cockburn#cite_note-4
I realize that the reference in Bruce's bio is linked to a real source. However, there is pretty much zero chance that that is not complete fiction ( the Eddie VanHalen quote) that exact quote gets thrown about as accredited to Jimmie Hendrix/ Eric Clapton / Carlos Santana, etc. It's just not a real statement. Please remove it, it is embarrassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.2.162.36 (talk) 15:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it. The quote was dubious and almost certainly apocryphal, and the source was a student newspaper. Woodroar (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Larry Elder
User: 72.86.135.10 using multiple PA ip addresses keeps adding primary sourced content to Larry Elder's page, despite being told to find a secondary source, since the content added concerns another individual (Trump). User has been reverted by multiple editors and insists the addition is proper. Around ten reversions have happened. 2600:1012:B06F:81F9:586:AD86:5829:B5A5 (talk) 18:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * User appears to have edited from the following IPs (not deceptively or improperly, as it is a dynamic range, which also happens to afflict me):

2600:1012:B06F:81F9:586:AD86:5829:B5A5 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 72.86.136.118
 * 72.86.136.78
 * 72.86.135.33
 * 72.86.135.10

Mizkif
There is a conflict between the proper name to be recorded for content creator Mizkif, a Twitch Streamer who refers to himself as Matthew Rinaudo. Contentions arise on the possibility that the personal name of the individual who refers to himself as "Matthew Rinaudo" may differ from this name. The only source which notes this alternative name is an LLC registered in Texas which uses the name "Mizkif". This source is public information regarding a Living Person, and is the only primary source which links the name Mizkif with the alternative name. Certain wikipedia editors have attempted to do "research" to connect these two names, using unreliable and unsubstantiated sources from Reddit and potentially doctored images to provide "proof" that this name should be changed on Wikipedia. In accordance with the WP:BLP policy and the WP:SYNTHESIS policy on research, there is no evidence that shows that Wikipedia should list this name as anything other than the name which the content creator, Matthew Rinaudo, refers to himself.
 * As one of the editors with the opposing view I dispute that there is any violation of WP:SYNTHESIS as this repeats reliable secondary sources on his education, no mention is made to the LLC and no source is from reddit. Given WP:BLP we should give greater weight to secondary sources for names. FeWorld (talk) 17:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I see that the article has been protected at "Matthew ". Unfortunately, there are literally 0 reliable sources connecting a Matthew to Mizkif. A Google search for "Mizkif +" returns 1 result, a sketchy AI data collection site that redirects a few times before my browser antivirus/firewall closes the tab, which suggests that it's trying to install malicious software. Meanwhile, a Google search for "Mizkif +Rinaudo" returns "About 23,700 results". Most of them are junk, but I saw reliable sources like The New York Times (Mizkif, who is also known as Matthew Rinaudo) and ComicBook.com (Matthew "Mizkif" Rinaudo) alongside lesser sources like Upcomer (formerly Daily Esports) (Matthew “Mizkif” Rinaudo) before I stopped looking. Those sources are against, what? A high school yearbook and a college newspaper that don't even mention "Mizkif". It's absolutely WP:SYNTH to make that connection, and from sources that are nowhere near compliant for BLP claims. I have no issue with the protection, but the article should be reverted to this version, which is actually supported by reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 18:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Protection was removed and the article has been reverted to the sourced name. I've added the New York Times and ComicBook.com as sources. We should be good, although the article could probably use more people watching it. Woodroar (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Savio Kabugo
Some one uses this name for facebook's blue tick and posts fake news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricWon91 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. However unless this is covered in reliable secondary sources, it's irrelevant to us except in ensuring the Facebook profile is not linked within our article Savio Kabugo assuming there are doubts over who controls it, and it's not. Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Shi Zhengli
At Shi Zhengli, an editor has insisted on linking to an article by a layperson published in a fashion/entertainment magazine (Vanity Fair) that strongly pushes the fringe view that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab. This magazine article is being used to source the fact that Shi Zhengli's research has received funding from the US National Institutes of Health. I replaced the Vanity Fair article with an article from Science Magazine that is entirely focused on the grants in question, but the same editor has reverted to reinstate the link to the Vanity Fair article. At this point, it does not seem that sourcing the fact that the NIH grants went towards Shi Zhengli's research is the point of linking to Vanity Fair (as ProcrastinatingReader has rejected use of the superior Science Magazine article as a source), but rather that the point is linking to an article that strongly pushes the lab leak hypothesis. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talk page the article looks appropriate for the information its being used to cite, I don’t think Thucydides411’s summary of the issue is neutral... For example they neglect to mention that this question has already been asked and answered at WP:RSN Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_348 I also don’t think that ProcrastinatingReader has “rejected” the Science article, all I see is a revert of an edit against consensus which unnecessarily removed the VF article even though both are WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The OP's summary doesn't even seem correct. For one, the Vanity source doesn't "strongly push[] the fringe view that SARS-CoV-2 leaked from a lab", and is cited positively by academics who are themselves sceptical of the leak. Of course, all this was covered at the RSN discussion, which found the source perfectly reliable for the context, in accordance with its general reliability for fact-based news. The source has won awards for public interest reporting, even, eg for this article on the Haditha massacre. I would like the ask the OP substantiate (using reliable sources) the countless claims they've made about this article or this source, or at least one of them would be a good start. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:54, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Please note that this question was not answered at RSN. At RSN, misrepresented the issue (as a question of whether MEDRS is required to note the existence of a research grant), and as a consequence, the RSN discussion did not discuss the actual point of contention: should a BLP cite an article that pushes a fringe view (that SARS-CoV-2 was engineered in a lab), particularly when that fringe view is potentially defamatory towards a living person (since the implication is that Shi Zhengli created the virus)? I would have pointed this out at RSN, but ProcrastinatingReader did not inform editors at Talk:Shi Zhengli of the RSN discussion.


 * I have offered up an alternative source that actually comes from a science-focused magazine (Science Magazine), which does not push a fringe theory, and which (unlike the Vanity Fair article) is entirely about the grants in question. Yet and ProcrastinatingReader are somehow resistant to using that alternative (and in this context, clearly preferable) source. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Please correct your mischaracterization, I have not in any way objected to using Science as well "I would prefer we use both the Science and Vanity Fair pieces, both are WP:RS and together they are stronger than individually.” Do not mischaracterize the opinions of other editors, you are making a habit of it but its a very serious offense. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You support the use of the Vanity Fair piece, which is extremely troubling from a BLP point of view. I don't see why you're not supportive of simply replacing it with the Science Magazine article. This is a serious BLP issue, and I would hope that all editors would show sensitivity to that fact. We shouldn't be linking to pro-fringe articles in entertainment magazines that suggest - contrary the scientific consensus - that a living person engineered SARS-CoV-2. You've raised BLP with me in the past for far less serious issues (at Id Kah Mosque, where you argued that quoting an interview the imam gave to state media could be harmful to the imam), so I don't understand why you're putting so little weight on much more serious BLP concerns in this case. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I made the comment back in that discussion that there's specific details on how Zhengli's funding is actually as a subcontractor from a US-based group EcoHealth Alliance that did get that funding from USAID. The VF article doesnt get to that level of detail, but other articles get into this detail and covered by that Science article, which also talks about how the funding had been pulled/etc. which should be discussed more. This is not a MEDRS issue, this is simply getting to more concrete details that other sources clearly go into. --M asem  (t) 15:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Jean-François Gariépy
His page needs deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-E-N-O-V-A (talk • contribs) 14:06, 5 Aug 2021 (UTC)


 * On what grounds? The sourcing at the article looks robust. —C.Fred (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

it's a series of hit-pieces that has served simply as attempts to socially and economically destroy his life. he literally has escaped to the wilderness because of this wikipedia article and its associated articles. isn't there an ethical basis to not put up an article that could lead to violence or economic disenranchising? the guy is not racist or far right, and even if he was, is it wise to put that in wikipedia article in our divided time of political turmoil?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by J-E-N-O-V-A (talk • contribs) 01:40, 9 Aug 2021 (UTC)


 * These are serious allegations, but they also need to be backed up. For example, can you demonstrate that what is written in the article is false, exaggerated, or unfair? It certainly appears that the article heavily relies upon a daily beast article, particularly in the more sensationalistic parts about his relationship with an Autistic woman. But, while the daily beast appears to be considered biased by many editors, its factual reporting isn't considered bad. Apart from that Daily Beast article, it doesn't seem this individual is mentioned a lot in the English press or is particularly notable. What exactly do you find wrong in the article? Av &#61; λv (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You ask a good question because I do not know the answer. All I know is the page makes me very uncomfortable. It seems as though Wikipedia is basically joining in with bullying created by some journalists that have some kind of personal vendetta against him, or were paid a salary to do some unethical coverage or punitive coverage of him. The articles perhaps have served their purpose in attacking him into some basic sense of submission and humility compared to his past self, but they are existing now as a perpetual sign of media trickery and slander, which has spilled onto the internet because of its strange acceptance of "truth for truths sake". We must be selective about truths because there are so many. J-E-N-O-V-A (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Completely misrepresenting racist gesture by Cecilia Salvai
Any mention of the fact that Cecilia Salvai's controversial actions were racist are repeatedly removed because of "huge POV" despite being consistently and unanimously referred to as such by every reliable source (including the one cited in the wikipedia article). The wikipedia article completely misrepresents what every source on the matter says, and is entirely devoid from reality.

Sky sports calling it racist https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/12374263/juventus-say-they-made-an-unforgivable-mistake-after-racist-tweet-appeared-on-their-womens-team-feed

CNN calling it racist https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/06/football/juventus-racist-post-asians-intl-scli-spt/index.html

Insider calling it racist https://www.insider.com/juventus-women-twitter-post-player-racist-gesture-2021-8

The Guardian calling it offensive and referring to a well known commentator that calls it blatantly racist https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/aug/06/juventus-apologise-after-being-condemned-for-offensive-tweet

Indy100 calling it blatantly racist https://www.indy100.com/news/juventus-women-racist-tweet-asian-apology-b1898017

CTV calling it racist https://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/juventus-apologizes-for-racist-post-shared-on-women-s-team-s-twitter-feed-1.5537182

BBC calling it racist https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/58109308

NYPost calling it racist https://nypost.com/2021/08/05/juventus-soccer-team-delete-racist-picture/

ESPN calling it racist https://www.espn.com/soccer/juventus-itajuventus/story/4446605/juventus-apologise-for-offensive-picture-on-womens-twitter-account

The Telegraph calling it racist https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/08/05/juventus-women-forced-apologise-racist-tweet/ 2001:56A:F343:2700:FC35:9E49:7241:4CF6 (talk) 03:10, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Concluding whether the act is racist is a matter of opinion and falls under WP:LABEL. Whether and how this widely shared opinion should be acknowledged by wikipedia should be determined by consensus. Including the apology from the team and condemnation of racism would tell the reader the basis of the controversy without making a judgment on the gesture. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to say that whole section rings of RECENT. I would propose removing the whole thing unless it proves to have staying power.  Springee (talk) 18:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironically, it's probably the item that has the most sources in her career. i would leave it in, around the same length as it is now, with the best sources used to source it. Black Kite (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RECENT is not policy. UNDUE & DUE are. I invite you to review the 24 pages of English coverage on Google News and tell me what percentage you think is an appropriate threshold for inclusion. Just like racism is not recent, this incident will stain her for years to come with or without the help of wikipedia. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As it is, wikipedia still misrepresents all reliable sources quite significantly "prompted accusations of racism from the online community" is of course *technically true*, but it is now at all how sources describe it, nor a reasonable description that represents the situation correctly. This has been accused of racism by a huge number of standard reliable media outlets in print and TV and well known sports commentators, among others, not just 'the online community'. I'd also disagree with the 'accused' as this is original research not reporting what reliable sources say, there are no reliable sources that claim this gesture is just accused of being racist, all are very clear that it is racist.2001:56A:F343:2700:B8D4:5CA1:8C32:4CCA (talk) 06:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to understand WP:LABEL and WP:VOICE. Labeling the gesture as racist is an opinion that requires attribution because opinions cannot be stated as fact. Further, the cited CNN source describes the accusation as coming from the online community: "The photograph was swiftly taken down but not before it prompted a ferocious backlash and accusations of 'blatant racism' from the online community." There is serious irony that you reject "online community" as not being inclusive enough while you refer to online news articles and sports commentators. If you want to expand this with accusations of racism from others, you must find a source that explicitly acknowledges them, not by synthesising several sources to reach a conclusion. Further, your diatribe against the term 'accused' being original research is bizarre given that the term is not used in the article at all. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The CNN source itself calls it racist, not just from the online commununity. It mentions that it prompted accusations of racism from the online community, as well as making it clear and calling it racist itself, as does every reliable source on this. Wikipedia on the otherhand is not reporting what reliable sources have said correctly, just taking this single part of a bigger picture.


 * "Labeling the gesture as racist is an opinion that requires attribution because opinions cannot be stated as fact"
 * It can be attributed to any of the many sources that explicitly call it as such (which is essentially every single reliable secondary source that has covered this), the CNN source included "Juventus has apologized after a tweet was posted on its women's team's official account showing a player making a racist gesture".


 * "while you refer to online news articles and sports commentators"
 * I have referred to *many* in print newspapers. Essentially every newspaper publishes online as well now, as does every news program. Do we describe all news as "the online community" now??? What a ridiculous claim. I have no idea what it means to be an "online sports commentator", the sports commentators mentioned are well known in their coverage of sports offline.


 * "Further, your diatribe against the term 'accused' being original research is bizarre given that the term is not used in the article at all. "
 * What? I've literally quoted the part of the article that is clearly misrepresentative that calls it an accusation from the online community. Again, this would be fine to include if it also made it clear that it is racist as every reliable secondary source does. 2001:56A:F343:2700:5D6A:A215:C78E:F5D1 (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The Guardian article you link refers to the sports commentator, Keith Olbermann, tweeting his opinion. Hence, part of the online community. You should focus on "Whether and how this widely shared opinion should be acknowledged by wikipedia should be determined by consensus." It is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY for us to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

James Barry (surgeon) (1789–1865)
A new account was created today and immediately made these edits deleting the birth name of the historical subject cited to the BBC, and used "deadname" as a justification. Could a BLP expert review these edits? Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP doesn't apply to long deceased people but you may want to weigh in on this current RFC about deadnaming deceased people.Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps off-topic, but I see that E. J. Levy's The Cape Doctor is finally out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Margarita Zavala
Something odd is happening at Margarita Zavala's wiki page. Burrobert (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN. Someone vandalized a commonly used template, and while that change has been fixed, you may need to purge pages that show it. --M asem (t) 14:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Adrian David Cheok
The page seems to be "controlled" by user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Belbury. I made one edit and he immediately undid it. Then when I undid it he sent threatening messages that I am starting an edit war and will be banned and the page will be locked etc. If you run through the history you can clearly see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lord_Belbury seems to think he is the judge and controller of this article about a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.225.196.187 (talk • contribs)
 * Best not to delete sourced material, or to add unsourced material. Perhaps learn some basic editing skills & practices?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * All I did here was move an added sentence out of the lead, and restored a line to it that was being deleting without explanation. The IP editor is misunderstanding what an article's lead section is for, I think. The article has had BLP/COI issues in the past, it could certainly use more eyes on it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * IP, although you don't have to register an account to edit here, the Adrian David Cheok article has a persistent problem with a sock who keeps trying to remove well sourced negative material, often replacing it will poorly sourced positive material. Since you seem to be trying to do something similar (although I personally don't think some random conspiracy theory preprint is positive, but I suspect many supporters of Adrian David Cheok think it is), I suggest you register for an account and establish yourself as an editor here if you want people to care much about your complaints about that article. In any case, I removed the pre-print from the article body, as all it was a link to the pre-print itself. We should not be mentioning random pre-prints which have received no coverage in reliable secondary sources. If someone can find such coverage, they can take it to the article talk page and we can discuss whether to include it. Note that this is a discretionary sanctions area. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Gokulotsavji Maharaj
is potentially notable, but in an awful state. I removed some of the gushing but lack the time and energy to sort it out any further. FDW777 (talk) 18:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Chesterton Academy
I need some help here--I cannot, right now untangle all the threads. A few editors (OK, five accounts, but two people, as far as I can tell) have been doing their best to work in material related to a former teacher. Some of it is sourced, with what one might call a proper sources, some of it is not, some of it is so-so (primary sources). But all of it strikes me as a vendetta against one person. Unfortunately I have to run and cannot investigate further, plus, I'd like another set of eyes looking at it, even if just to see what all is acceptable and what all needs to be cut and/or revdeleted. Look at the article history, click on some of the user talk pages/contributions, and you'll see what I mean. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole section seemed coat racked into the article about the school. The alleged abuse didn't take place at the school, the whole thing seems like a big BLP violation. Also the school itself doesn't seem terribly notable, although I don't know if private secondary schools are generally considered notable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * People_of_Praise (which needs cleanup also) sections #5 and #6 for what's going on here. fiveby(zero) 18:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC) Drmies was already reverting on that article, but the linked police report should probably be removed/revdel? fiveby(zero) 18:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I trimmed that section and renamed it. No need to report the name of a non-notable BLP in allegations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like this is cleaned up across a number of articles. I don't even know where to begin with the revdel'ing, but I'm pretty sure any mention of the guy should be removed per Biographies of living_persons. I believe it was shoehorned into Great Hearts Academies, Central Catholic High School (Portland, Oregon), Chesterton Academy, and Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis, Trinity Schools and Trinity School at River Ridge. There's also discussion using the name on some of the talk pages that may need revdel. Thanks to for compiling that list of articles and reverting a lot of the BLPvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I was involved in the issue with the religious group People of Praise, its school board Trinity Schools and the main school in question Trinity School at River Ridge. I only just realized the involvement of the other, less directly involved articles after 40 k of discussion on Talk:Trinity Schools. I really hate bending over backwards to AGF and then discovering how blatant the violations are. Meters (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I can see AGF there, as there was at least a source. At least it appears to be resolved now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your good work. I'm cleaning up. Drmies (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the extensive clean up. Meters (talk) 20:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah thanks for the revdels, and thanks to Meters for their cleanup. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:09, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Brother Gregory Sutton
What is the best course of action for a new article that contains reams of very serious unsourced sexual abuse claims? I would tend to think they are mostly, if not all, true. Should something brand new like this with so many unsourced claims be sent back to draft? --- Possibly &#9742; 04:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Zendik Farm
Could Zendik Farm please be oversighted as far back as diff? In fact, maybe it should just be deleted outright as prior to the violation, it did not appear notable? Thanks, Abductive  (reasoning) 00:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've reverted back to that point as the content was sourced to blogs (not WP:RS) and contained WP:BLP violations. Any revdel of the content will need an admin (which I'm not). Neiltonks (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Ron Dennis
There is a section which I consider defamatory in the entry on Ron Dennis. It is poorly referenced but it has been there for years. I have attempted to remove the section in question but I have been unsuccessful. I have outlined my concerns on the talk page of the entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.144.17 (talk • contribs) 18 August 2021 10:44 (UTC)
 * The section (now called "Communication style") contains no defamatory statements at all. It has a reliable source.  It could and should have more, which I will work on and there is a construtive discussion ongoing at the talk page.  The anon user should have given this discussion time to develop.  But regardless, this is a content dispute and this is not the correct forum. Mark83 (talk) 11:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it was premature for the IP to bring this here but this is one of the correct forums to seek wider feedback for content disputes which raise BLP concerns. This isn't one of the ANs which deal with behavioural issues. Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I understand what you mean. But it’s an uncontroversial BLP issue. And now resolved via talk page discussion. Mark83 (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

New York Post
My gut tells me that the fair use image used in this article's infobox is potentially a violation of our blp policy. Am I wrong?--John Cline (talk) 08:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * See The New Yorker reporting on the matter and the headline (on HuffPost): "The Story Behind the Instant Classic “Bezos Exposes Pecker” Headline". David Pecker (abbreviated per usual convention to Pecker surname) is the CEO of American Media, Inc. HuffPost ran the same headline.-- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;) 10:36, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to say; my bad. Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now that deserves some kind of tabloid award. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Richard Stanley Abuse Allegations - Contentious Content/Libel
The commentary on the page of Richard Stanley pertains to ongoing court cases, is contentious, and potentially libellous.

Richard Stanley is in the process of filing for defamation and libel against those who have made these allegations against him, which have not been proven in a court of law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heretic55 (talk • contribs)
 * These allegations appear to be neutrally reported and well sourced. He is a notable person, and the accusations have received significant coverage. As long as our language remains neutral I don't see an issue with the inclusion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Heretic55, I strongly advise refactoring what you wrote above or risk being blocked. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 11:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Carlo Herrera
Hello: I've been trying to have an article deleted as 5 out of the 7 references on the page is by the subject himself. The page is, in my opinion, unambiguous self-promotion and thus merits deletion. The subject also has not yet reached notable stature in his industry yet, and neither is he a well-known personality in his home country. What do others think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chantellekatalbas (talk • contribs) 20:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Luas
Concerns relate to repeated addition of a bare URL joe.ie reference where an interviewee "Formerly of this parish" is a former journalist for the newssite (not showing up on search on joe.ie but articles such as and  seem to prove the point, albeit some time ago.  This relates to an incident where the interviewee claims involvement.  Is the connection with the source sufficient either that the individual needs to be named, or the connection made explicit, or is prudent to remove the joe.ie source as the incident has been citebombed by 3 other sources which should probably be sufficient.  Allthough not relevant to this board the wikipedia article was repeatedly vandalised over the incident until finally page protected, with the ceasing of page protection vandalism has continued this weekend.  Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Imran Khan
This may be more of a Commons issue but posting here for speed: there's been heavy image vandalism on this article, forcing certain images to be removed (the vandalised images can be accessed from previous diffs). I would appreciate if any admin could delete certain revisions of offending images and make necessary blocks. IronManCap (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, the images with vandalised revisions are File:-UNGA (48784380531) (cropped).jpg and File:Imran in peshawar.jpg, so would appreciate revdels and blocking of the image vandal from any Commons admins. IronManCap (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Two more images of Khan were recently vandalised by a new account of the blocked vandal. Can we get some sort of protection for all images of Khan please? IronManCap (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons
Is Forensic Files or this article at The Morning Call a reliable source for the following claim about Caleb Fairley at Dungeons & Dragons?
 * In season 6, episode 30 of the Forensic Files television series, the case of Caleb Fairley who murdered a woman and her 2 year old daughter in Pennsylvania is presented. In that episode it is stated that a law enforcement search of his home revealed he was a D&D fanatic. FBI profiler Kenneth Lanning said in an affidavit that Fairley's adult victim "... fit the physical description of the woman in his [Fairley's] sexual fantasies... and the pornographic material, vampire paraphernalia and the Dungeons and Dragons items supported his preferential sex fantasy combined with violence."

My understanding of Forensic Files is that it's a sensationalistic docudrama that we shouldn't use to source claims about living persons. It's been mentioned here a few times by Zaereth—1, 2, 3—who seems to view it with similar disdain. The Morning Call is a local paper, neither particularly reputable nor disreputable. I'm not finding any unquestionably reliable sources that are repeating these claims. I did find, for example, an AP article that mentions Fairley played Dungeons & Dragons. But there do not appear to be any good sources that say D&D caused—or was related in any way—to Fairley's crimes. Woodroar (talk) 00:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't get me wrong. I don't want to ruffle any feathers here. It's not that I disdain Forensic Files. To the contrary. I like that show. It's to some degree informative and at the same time very entertaining. The thing to always remember, though, is that it is entertainment, not news. I would say the same thing about those wonderful Ken Burns documentaries.


 * Here's the deal. News is written with expository writing, which includes everything from academic and technical writing to journalistic and encyclopedic writing. Nearly all non-fiction is written with some form of expository writing or another, so that's the first thing I look for when evaluating a source. Expository writing is subject-oriented writing --cold, detached, and analytical-- and doesn't concern itself the emotions, wants, or desires of the subjects nor, especially, the author.


 * However, there is a grey area out there that is called literary journalism. This is where they are telling "based on true event" stories written in fictional style. In literary journalism, the name is misleading I think, because it has nothing to do with true journalism. Literary journalism uses narrative writing, which is the second of the four main writing-styles (the others being descriptive and persuasive). Narrative writing is character-oriented writing. Narrative writing is all about conveying the character's emotions, and ultimately controlling the reader's. (If you want to be a good fiction writer, you have to know how to tug at heart strings.) They're dramatizations and narratives that are based on real events, but they take their fair share of liberties with the facts to create this fictional drama that makes an otherwise boring story interesting.


 * For an example, look up Walt Disney's famous movie, White Wilderness. He took all these different video shots of lemmings in Alaska, and cut and edited it into a narrative, thus single-handedly creating the myth that lemmings commit mass suicide. Now I'm not saying that all documentaries are that blatantly false, but we can't forget it's "true-fiction", and thus are not reliable for the purposes of Wikipedia.


 * When I say they are not true journalism, I also mean that they are usually not reporting on stuff, but simply taking their info from news reports that are already out there. Those original news0-reports are the real sources I would look for. Settling for a documentary is just poor research in my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that we should not use shows like Forensic Files (rather than more refined documentaries) for reliable sourcing, particularly for BLP. That doesn't mean that using pointed touched on FF cannot be searched for in other more acceptable RSes. (Eg: I find myself often watching these for-entertainment documentary shows, hear an interesting fact that I feel can be documented in WP, and search out corroborating sources rather than the show itself to use that fact). --M asem (t) 01:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification, Zaereth, and both of you for mentioning using these sources to find others. I'm actually doing that now and not finding much. I don't have access to the Forensic Files episode, but I have been searching for the Kenneth Lanning documents mentioned in The Morning Call source, the affidavit that specifically ties Caleb Fairley to Dungeons & Dragons. I was surprised to find that searching for "Kenneth Lanning" "Caleb Fairley" gives 2 results: the TMC article at 2 slightly different URLs. Similarly, searching for "Kenneth Lanning" "Lisa Manderach" finds the same article plus a Russian AI spam site that copied some of its contents. And I get the same article by searching for quotes from Lanning's affidavit, as taken from the TMC source—for example, "fit the physical description of the woman in his sexual fantasies" and "the pornographic material, vampire paraphernalia and the Dungeons and Dragons items". So at this point, I'm suspicious. Is this made up? Or maybe the author got the affidavit via FOIA. I don't know. But nobody else seems to be writing about it, which suggests to me that even if it's true, it's probably UNDUE. Woodroar (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I probably won't know what the episode says until I see it on TV. I may have seen it already, but it didn't stick in my mind. If you look at the green text you quoted above, you can see a little of what I mean. Words like "fanatic" are strong words meant to invoke emotion in the reader/watcher. Somehow magically tying sex to D&D there too, as if! Did these people even bother to find out anything about D&D? I'm guessing it just sounded evil to them by the name, not realizing until The Big Bang Theory came on the air that D&D is probably the worst thing to have around if you want sex. This looks like some over-dramatization on their parts.


 * The problem with documentaries and other forms of literary journalism is that it is a grey area. Some may be very good at keeping to all the facts and just filling in the blanks with some emotion, which I would rank Ken Burns at the high end of that scale. Then you have at the other end things like the Amityville Horror, where, yeah, there was a house and everybody died; that's about the extent of the truth behind the story. I've seen the same crimes on different docu-dramas that were played out so differently I barely recognized them. We shouldn't be dealing in grey areas when it comes to sourcing --in any article-- in my opinion, let alone a BLP. They may be a great place to begin researching, but I would strongly recommend drawing a line in the sand where things start to get mucky. Zaereth (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2021 (UTC)


 * P.S.: For those who don't know what Dungeons and Dragons is, imagine an ancient version of The Legend of Zelda somehow combined with Monopoly (game). Zaereth (talk) 03:13, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the claims for now. If Forensic Files isn't a reliable source, that leaves only The Morning Call, which has never been discussed at RSN. TMC is also the only source making these negative claims about a living person, meaning there are UNDUE concerns in addition to BLP. TMC also dubiously mentions a primary source that doesn't appear to exist online. Of course, primary sources don't have to be online, but it's particularly suspicious in this case. A Dungeons & Dragons-fueled murder taking place at the height of the Satanic ritual abuse panic and investigated by FBI agent Kenneth Lanning? That would certainly have been picked up by anti-D&D groups. In addition, Lanning has been quite outspoken about his work on the Satanic panic, so it's unusual that he's never mentioned the adjacent case of Caleb Fairley. In any case, if the consensus is to include this content, I'll certainly self-revert. Woodroar (talk) 23:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Eric Joyce
Hello,

I am quite new to editing and have, for early experience, concentrated my efforts on minor grammatical changes and upon 3 biographies of living persons. I have edited 'Eric Joyce' to take out errors without references and one serious risk of libel. An unsigned in user, using different IPs (I presume using VPS, etc) keeps reverting my edits and is abusive. The page shows evidence from some time ago that occasionally unsigned users have made harmful entries and revisions, then been corrected by signed in users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteveCree2 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 19 Jul 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the Eric Joyce article to make it easier to review here. It looks to have been fairly quiet recently. Are there still issues? --Elonka 22:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Darragh O'Connor
is claiming to have links to the soccer club, and is changing the Darragh O'Connor BLP bio citing their own website, rather than the numerous other sources which contradict it. More eyes needed please. GiantSnowman 15:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The account is now edit warring. Anybody around to review before I escalate to ANI? GiantSnowman 15:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Now at ANI. GiantSnowman 16:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Detention of Alek Sigley
Hello,

I am writing this upon the suggestion of an editor (see my talk page). I am the subject of this article (Detention of Alek Sigley) and there are multiple errors in it.

First, and most serious one is this sentence:

"Sigley was not supposed to enter North Korea before 2019, a condition of an academic scholarship he had received from the Australian and South Korean governments.[12]"

Then it notes I went to North Korea in 2018 in the next sentence. This makes it seem like I intentionally violated the conditions of my Australian Government (nothing from South Korea, actually) awarded New Colombo Plan Scholarship, which is a pretty serious allegation. The truth is I never violated my scholarship conditions.

I can prove it using two methods:

1) The author of the book which is cited published this retraction: http://disorientations.com/2021/08/24/a-correction/ [archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20210824135442/http://disorientations.com/2021/08/24/a-correction/]. Also note that in its introduction, the book makes clear that it is "creative non-fiction" in which many of the scenes are purely imagined.

2) I am listed here as a 2016 NCP scholar: https://www.dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/new-colombo-plan/scholarship-program/Pages/new-colombo-plan-2016-scholars?fbclid=IwAR0YkhkKVgMAnyEb0PyiUVBJ9blzvvbxTH_FjuCwGdQF7PIK7d7t-15o0mo

This means I started my program in 2016. You can see the conditions here: https://www.dfat.gov.au/sites/default/files/scholarship-program-guidelines-2016.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2Uh2fBbBhKXgDOeAWUl1ASW4OUvrZtM55sdu5wb7cjMEE4EF9lg4H2PCc

Maximum program length is 17 months. It is mathematically impossible for my program to have finished in 2019. Truth is I began in mid 2016, ended in late 2017/early 2018, and went to North Korea again in April 2018. There was no violation. Please remove this sentence.

Thanks,

Alek

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alek Sigley (talk • contribs) 14:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed based on source concerns an correction by author. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify i only removed the "Sigley was not supposed to enter North Korea before 2019", but any use of See You Again in Pyongyang in a BLP may need further consideration. fiveby(zero) 15:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Alek Sigley (talk) 05:27, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Khushi Mukherjee article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy
Hi this is Khushi Mukherjee, I am Indian television and Bollywood film actress and model and public figure too, I created my biography article page Biographies of living persons, with reliable sources like, Newspaper articles, News, and some others references, but my article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. request to you kindly Don't delete my page.


 * Hello . You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion at this link Articles for deletion/Khushi Mukherjee. The links under "New to AfD? Read these primers!" may be of help to you. Note also, that if this article is kept, it is not your page, it is WP:s article about you. More info on that at this link: An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Rabee al Madkhali
Hello, I repeatedly see on WikiPedia that this Islamic preacher started a movement called 'Madkhalism'. Upon further research from unbiased sources, I have learned that he never suggested this at all, and rather this was a defamatory label from his opponents in other groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourlocalakh (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * No, the Madkhalism article has multiple reliable sources using the term “Madkhalism”. What Rabee al-Madkhali did or did not suggest is irrelevant for Wikipedia. If the preponderance of reliable sources refers to his movement as “Madkhalism”, which is the case, then that term will be used here. By the way, sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (i.e. these: ~ ) DeCausa (talk) 21:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Bruce Conforth
. Mr Conforth is a well respected and award-winning academic and author, the first curator of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, now retired, who has been accused of sexual assaults in his previous employment, as has been widely reported in published media such as the New York Times. His article has been subject for some years to multiple IP edits seeking to present him in the best possible light, and IP edits (most recently here) are now seeking to remove all mention of the recent allegations from the article. Some admin input is requested to resolve this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that they have edited with four IP addresses in the range 2601:400:8000:AC70:* to both remove the negative, add puff and praise and remove maintenance tags regarding poor sourcing. Since they are located in Ann Arbor they clearly have a COI. Could maybe an edit filter block that range from that page? KylieTastic (talk) 10:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Also I see that others from Ann Arbor have also been editing some positive some negative but probably all linked to subject and/or University of Michigan - Such as, , , . KylieTastic (talk) 11:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I've partial-blocked the /64 that is edit-warring from the article. Black Kite (talk) 12:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Elonka Dunin
Hi, for those who don't know me, I am a longtime editor and administrator of Wikipedia, and there is also an article about me for other reasons, at Elonka Dunin. I of course won't make any controversial change directly to this article for COI reasons, but I would appreciate another set of eyes. A few weeks ago a (relatively) new editor added two sentences to the lead of the article, stating my affiliation with Wikipedia, and that I'm an acquaintance of Dan Brown. I feel that putting these comments in the lead may be giving undue weight to them (and the Dan Brown comment is actually redundant), and suggest that perhaps they should either be removed, or included elsewhere in the article. Regarding my Wikipedia editing, if others feel that it is appropriate to include, perhaps do so in the "Works" section? I don't feel it should be in the lead though, because, per WP:LEAD, it is neither summarizing the rest of the article, nor is it indicating a primary reason for my notability. Thanks for any attention here, --Elonka 02:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * These requests were appropriate and I have edited as recommended. (Being an acquaintance of someone should basically never be lead material.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, much appreciated. This request can now be closed. --Elonka 22:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ryan Kavanaugh
This page has been under IP vandalism attacks for a couple of times runing into months. The IPs focus on adding negative content about the topic. This has led to incessant protection of the page. But each time the protection is lifted, the IP vandals will return to continue the vandalism.

The major issue is the negative and copied  "Controversy & Lawsuits section"   which was added  by one of the IPs  184.147.127.76   on  5th  August 2021‎. This was reverted by another editor  because it clearly violated  the  WP:BLP policy despite the fact that it has sources. Edit wars resumed. The page was again protected by  till Nov 5, 2021.

Some of vandals became furious and initiated  a discussion about  this on the talk page because they were barred from editing the page. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ryan_Kavanaugh While this was going on, this User:JK.Kite, an extended user,  re-added the negative  "Controversy & Lawsuits section"    in a  blatant copied  manner on  23rd August 2021‎. User:DanCherek spotted it and filed a Copyvio revdel report on 24 August 2021‎. He also removed the negative copied content.

User:DanCherek also restored part of the  contentious content that was removed.User:TheresNoTime  completed the Copyvio revdel  on 24 August and removed the  Copyvio revdel  tag.

Shortly after this, this same User:JK.Kite  on 25th August 2021 blantantly  created  a new  negative "Controversy"  section while the issue is still under contention at the Talk page. This has also  initiated  accusations on his talk page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JK.Kite#Paid_to_disseminate_false_and_misleading_info

The negative contentious  content  seems to be sourced but I believe it is strongly against the WP:BLP policy. Also there's a need to reach a consensus on this since it is contentious. It can be balanced, neutralized or removed because we're dealing with a living person here.

I suggest the page be restored to the last edit without the "Controversy" until a consensus is reached on this. Hence, I am restoring the page back to the last stable edit by "ChrisTakey" until a consensus is reached on this.Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 06:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. My initial involvement was purely in a copyright capacity, but I was dismayed to see my action misrepresented on the talk page as if my removal of copyright content was an endorsement of the whitewashing that has been going on. Based on this post, it appears that Yaxı Hökmdarz does not understand that this is not vandalism and that the reason for the page's protection was not to keep out any and all negative content (this was the stable version restored by the protecting administrator). Looking at the recent page history, I see that Yaxı Hökmdarz is the only editor who has been persistently trying to restore an old version of the page since early July, including a ridiculous "quotes" section, and that they had not even tried to use the talk page until three hours ago (to post the notice of this discussion). DanCherek (talk) 09:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you are an experienced user and I wasn't expecting this type of edit/removal from you unless you have Conflict of interest to save this guy from negative info. You are continuously removing sourced and true information from the page which is from worlds top sources NYT and Variety. Please don't mind but you are vandalizing the page yourself and presenting the case we are doing something wrong. There are 1000s of pages with negative infos that are true and sourced. So, I suggest you should refrain from reverting sourced material and if you have COI or paid to do this please declare on your talk page and articles talk page. There's no copyvio on the current edit that was added by me. If this arbitration decides the removal of controversies, we have no issues but for now you should respect the sourced materials added to the pages. You should also read WP:BLP carefully that you mentioned. could shed more light on this issue. Thank you JK.Kite (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * JK.Kite, be mindful how you make baseless COI insinuations here and face the matter on ground.  You're already being accused of COI concerning this on your talk page by someone else.  An IP editor added this  same content  under "Controversy and Litigation" sub-section few days back.  It got reverted. The page got protected against those IPs.  Now, you as an extended editor re-added  it in a blatant copied manner almost at the same period and this led to Copyvio revdel tag issue.  Judge for yourself here who is having COI issue.


 * Let's face the matter squarely here:


 * I brought the matter here because this is the appropriate place to deal with it since it has been under contention. I pinged you and every other editor involved.  I also want   WP:BLP admins and other experienced editors to look into the matter so we can reach a consensus.   If I have a COI interest, I shouldn't bring the matter here.


 * I came into this matter because I noticed several IP accounts trying to add the same negative controversial and damaging content  since early July.  I have reported quite a good number and they got banned. I also requested protection of the page twice because these IPs keep coming back once the  protection period expires.   I never added new content.  I only  reverted to the last stable version that has no  negative controversy section.


 * I stated clearly that the  "Controversy”: update is  reverted temporarily until the issue is settled here.   I am  not here to support Ryan the subject.  I  don't know who he is.  I am only seeking justice in line with what I read  at WP:BLP.


 * Here's my point:
 * WP:BLPCRIME and WP:SUSPECT which are sub sections under WP:BLP  clearly states the following:


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


 * If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information.


 * From the above, the content  of the "Controversy" section  clearly shouldn't be there despite the fact they are from two sources.   They are  simply unproven accusations  against Ryan who is not a public figure  and the cases are still in court.  Litigations are still on. Hence the subject is presumed innocent  for the time being.


 * In line with WP:BLPCRIME cited above, such a content should only be added when the subject has been convicted by a competent court.
 * If Ryan is already convicted, then,  such a content may be allowed.  I won't try to revert such an edit for once if he's already convicted.


 * That's the basis of my argument. I am only  concerned with this negative controversial content.  Not worried about the “Ridiculous Quote” subsection and others.


 * I brought the matter here so that BLP admins and other experienced editors will look at it.
 * Also, from experience on wiki, where there's a contentious issue like this, the update is usually set aside until a consensus is reached.  I am once again  reverting the edit temporarily pending  when a consensus is reached here.


 * If at the end of the day, BLP admins and other experienced editors agree we leave the "controversy" content, I'll expressly abide by this and go my  way.   I simply want to get things done right according to the wiki policy we use.


 * We all as editors owe it a duty to protect English Wikipedia. It shouldn't be used a tool to victimize others  by any means.  Let's play by the rules.


 * JK.Kite, I appeal to you to hold on with your "controversy" update until we get clearance here by WP:BLP admins and other experienced editors.  If I am wrong, I’ll learn from them concerning controversial issues like this for future.


 * And JK.Kite, I like what you wrote on your userpage  ''Anything you do, good or bad, Karma is there for you’’.  That’s a wonderful one for everyone. Thanks all. Yaxı Hökmdarz (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Yaxı Hökmdarz, please try to condense. At some point, WP:TLDR turns into filibustering. Thanks. El_C 22:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe Ryan Kavanaugh, high profile film producer and Variety's 2011 Showman of the Year, is a public figure and WP:BLPCRIME does not apply to him. Further some of the proceedings against him are civil cases, not criminal. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Aseem Malhotra
There's a statement on the Aseem Malhotra article that refers to another living person. It's sourced but should it be removed as potentially libellous?

In Dirty Tricks at the bottom of the article:

He claims that he is the victim of a “dirty tricks” campaign by......


 * Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your support! Viv Hamilton (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe the "dirty tricks" section is undue weight. I support your edits on the article you have done good work but I don't think it needs its own section and I think it is undue weight. I would support removal of the dirty tricks section as it is sourced to only 1 reference and seems to be on a different topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you. There is another source I have found on online academic bullying that I was going to include in the same section.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I will probably change the heading when I add the new material. The online academic bullying article makes the point that science is sometimes the process of dissent from the consensus but you don't know at the time whether this is progress or not, so as well as mentioning a Malhotra piece as an example, it seems to fit the overall picture of someone that will be controversial because he/she challenges the consensus.  For the controversial sections I am trying to follow the guidance about balance and putting facts first then grouping the negative criticism, so I felt it would be cleaner to put these extra bits separate from the controversial subjects.  Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thinking further, I am going to remove it, at least until I add the other material, as that seems consistent with BLP, which seems to give the message, if in doubt take it out! Viv Hamilton (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Ernest Gondzik
Hi. I'd like a second opinion on this diff which cites a Facebook page for this person's death. He may well have died, but is this a WP:RS in this case? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Although it's quite likely true, it's also not a reliable source. If the person is notable then we should have reliable secondary sources covering it reasonably quickly. There's no real rush to make sure that it's updated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A Facebook page of what looks like his local wrestling club isn’t an WP:RS (normally). At his age, a death announcement is credible. But, what’s odd is I googled him and nothing comes up - even though it was posted on 14 august and says he died on 13 August. I would have thought an Olympic competitor’s death (even a minor Olympian?) would get a mention somewhere in the online Polish press by now. Sad if it’s true and no one’s bothered to report it. Maybe treat it as a WP:PRIMARY source and add a line limited to saying the club announced it on Facebook? DeCausa (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fairly sure this isn't the first time we have reason to think an olympian died but lack any decent sources. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks both.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm also a-ok with DeCausa's idea of treating it as primary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Alexander De Croo
Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo has become involved in a scandal where he contacted a pornographic actress Eveline Dellai to arrange a meeting. Apparently this scandal caused a major delay in the formation of a new government in Belgium. I made the initial edit to his page denoting the scandal but since then have been unable to maintain a paragraph discussing it. I have been warring with another user (possibly a sock puppet) despite trying to move the discussion to the talk page (to no avail) and I realize it would be helpful to have some outside input on how best to add this information to the page in an encyclopedic way. Thank you so much for your help. Iloveapphysics (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The way forward is to discuss it at the talk page. Be sure to mention that the cited newspaper, Corriere della Sera, is a major Italian newspaper. If a consensus is reached among editors at the talk page to include the material and the new SPA user continues to edit war, then their conduct can be addressed separately. —C.Fred (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you- will do. Iloveapphysics (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

shirley brown (Florida politician)


People are inserting libelous personal views on this wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.202.61.160 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * That is a crappy-looking WP:BLP, needs improvement or deletion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Doug Barrowman
Hi all, single-purpose user SeonaMillar has been continually engaging in WP:DE by adding their own content into the lead paragraph of this BLP for about a year, despite the input of other editors on talk and this noticeboard. Despite consensus reached here, user refuses to engage in discussion and continually reverts. Their material is poorly referenced (tabloid newspapers and parliamentary records), and some citations don't even mention the subject of the BLP. Their content also makes the lead para very long and poorly summarises the article.

I think the lead para in the earlier revision breaches NPOV and gives a lot of weight to a controversy that's already in the content down the page phrased in a more neutral way.

Could I get another set of eyes on this please?

ScepticalChymist (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Justin Paul (scholar)
Several claims to this person lack proper links (e.g. "Previously, Paul served as a faculty member with Rollins College,[3] the University of Washington and Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan.[4]"). These links are to the universities, but not evidence that he served there. The only references are on his LinkedIn page, which is not verifiable. Another example: "He left his bank job and did his Ph.D. He was an Assistant Professor and Department Chair at Indian Institute of Management (IIM)." Where and when did he do his PhD? What discipline was his PhD in? Which campus of IIM? Again, these claims were not verifiable. None of his textbooks appears to be well cited. Although he claims to be a 'Distinguished Professor' at a low-profile Indian institution (Symbiosis Institute of Business Management), he has only 1 journal article with acceptable GS citations, and the journal itself is not regarded as top tier. Needs a lot of cleaning up, or suggest deletion due to unverifiable claims and low prestige as an academic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritum99 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

172.56.42.108 (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Whine whine whine. It all comes with perfectly good sources, and since Wikipedia is a reality-based effort we're not going to delete material that you think is "defamatory" even though true. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP is also a CIVIL place. We should focus on the quality of specific arguments and help new editors understand how to address their concerns.  Often IP editors are inexperienced editors who are correctly identifying a problem but don't understand the Wiki-legalese needed to help fix it.  Springee (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * The contested material does have issues with IMPARTIAL. It is written with a conspiratorial tone and a way that makes the view of the editors very clear.  There are two bits of contested material.  The first is the accusations against Paxton.  This is a relatively long article yet ~1/3 of the lead is about charges filed in 2015 that as of 2021 haven't resulted in any conviction.  That does suggest that the charges might have been politically motivated.  Absent a conviction having them in the lead vs all the other things he has done is questionable.  The Texas election lawsuit sentence almost certainly should be part of the lead but again IMPARTIAL needs to apply.  It's impossible to read that sentence and not understand that the editors who wrote it are adding a POV vs simply stating the facts.  I would say the IP editor is correct to remove the accusation material but wrong to remove the lawsuit material.  The real issue here is the lead is inadequate and should be fixed.  Springee (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the time frame means much since it's an incitement and ongoing case rather than simply accusation which didn't amount to anything. The lengthy time frame seems to reflect more on the US legal system and complicated way such white collar cases tend to be handled, and perhaps also the ability of rich defendants to challenge everything, than any indication of a "political motivation". However it is true that absent a conviction we have to be careful not to give undue weight. But at the same time, having an attorney general to be under indictment while in office is definitely something that is fairly unusual and so not surprisingly has received attention and concern. Nil Einne (talk) 13:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nil Einne that the case's length is a feature of the legal system and not evidence of politically-motivated allegations. I would support shortening the section on the case, which could be done by cutting down on the blow-by-blow narration of the procedural motions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The case certainly needs to be part of the article but condensing away the play by play sounds like a good idea. Given the very short length of the lead I don't think this should be, effectively, 1/3rd of the total lead and one of two paragraphs covering what might be seen as the optional/variable info in the lead.  I typically assume the first paragraph is the boiler plate (who, what, when etc).  The next two paragraphs are typically those that, when done correctly, summarize the rest of the article.  The best solution is probably to rewrite the lead so it is a better summary of the complete article.  These events may well be part of a more holistic summary of the topic and that would likely address the concerns here.   I say that but I wouldn't want to be the person to take on the task. Springee (talk) 16:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Paxton is the type of article that we really really should keeping RECENTISM in mind and waiting on the ten-year view to decide whether any of these actions that are currently under legal evaluation are lede-worthy. We can absolutely document them in the body, but given the overall length of the body, the focus on these suspected actions, yet to be proven by a court of law, and not on what he actually has shown to have done, is the type of problematic editing that we tend to have on BLPs that are the common target of negative press journalism. We can't hide negative coverage, but we have to be aware that we are meant to right neutrally, impartially, and dispassionate about the topic, and we should give little care that the press wants to attack his character (no matter how much any of us as editors also feel that way). That can be really hard particularly in the areas Paxton's been involved with, but it needs to be done. --M asem (t) 14:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Zhang Zhehan
Hello,

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

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

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

Zoe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Need Freedom of Speech to Speak the Truth (talk • contribs)
 * You will need to deal with this on the Chinese Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia operates independently and we have no control over what goes on there, and it would be inappropriate to decide on the English Wikipedia what should happen there anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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


 * To summarize what I said on the talk page, sources support that she is a conspiracy theorist. Right now this is specifically regarding the white genocide conspiracy theory, which is unambiguously a conspiracy theory. There are also other sources for this regarding the unfounded (and debunked) October 2018 United States mail bombing attempts, which is that they were perpetrated by a "leftist" or leftists. (,, etc.) So who exactly is contesting this label? How, exactly, is this "contentious"? Merely being unflattering is not sufficient for something to be contentious, because this is an encyclopedia, not a public relations service. Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is you didn't provide sources that say "she is X" only that she promoted a given conspiracy theory. None of what you presented would meet the standard to apply that contentious label in wiki-voice which means we can't apply a tag which says the same.  This is why CATDEF says that to apply a CAT it must be commonly and consistently applied to the subject.  A few sources applying the label with respect to something in 2018 doesn't hit that bar.  If you think we have hit that level why doesn't the lead say she is a conspiracy theorist?  Springee (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out a similar issue on another article. Andy Ngo is categorized under "Gay writers" and "LGBT people from Oregon" even though these aren't defining characteristics and the sources don't discuss these specific characteristics. –dlthewave ☎ 15:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call either a contentious or subjective claim (Ngo would probably agree that he is gay, an LGBT person, a writer and from Oregon). I also would agree that both are examples of over categorization.  LGBT people from Oregon as a category seems to directly conflict with WP:OCLOCATION.  WP:OCEGRS mentions Category:LGBT writers.  I would presume if a person doesn't notably associate their writing and their LGBT status then that person shouldn't be in the category.  Springee (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I wish more editors were more willing to have a healthy relationship with reality. When people spread conspiracy theories, they are conspiracy theorists. Our articles should inform readers accordingly, as indeed this one does -- and then a navigational aid does no harm at all. Definitely not a BLP violation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have just argued for OR and that we should apply contentious labels on BLP based on such OR rather than on the usual RS process. Springee (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Except that sources do support this. There is no OR here, since it's per many reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 22:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If this is the case it should be easy to show that sources commonly call her a conspiracy theorist. Springee (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I really don't think it should be controversial to say that we should only describe people as a conspiracy theorist if reliable sources describe them as a conspiracy theorist. It seems pretty simple that contentious labels are the last place we should be sticking our OR. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 07:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Coulter is, per many reliable sources, an advocate of conspiracy theories. Stating this in simple terms is not automatically contentious. Describing this as a contentious label, as a way to remove it, would be concealing accurate information merely because it makes some people uncomfortable. As an encyclopedia, our goal should be to cut through euphemisms and explain things directly. Whether or not this is a flattering description is irrelevant to its accuracy. Saying "I don't think it should be controversial" is merely implying that your own opinion is common sense, which is unpersuasive.  Grayfell (talk) 22:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are making a strong case for including that, per sources, she has perpetuated something that has been called a conspiracy theory. The article reflects that.  However, we distinguish between someone who has perpetuated a single conspiracy theory and someone whom RS consistently and commonly call a conspiracy theorist.  To use the tag you need to show the latter, not the former.  Springee (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a strong point. There are people like Alex Jones who are absolutely conspiracy theorists because RSes routinely say that on the part that people like Jones constantly are discussing numerous disproven theories. But if all we have is that we know from sources that a person has spoken to support of a single conspiracy theory but does not support many, nor frequently discusses their support of this one theory, that's a stretch in terms of calling them a conspiracy theorist, and unless there's strong RSes that have opted to call that person directly a conspiracy theorist, then it would be an OR/BLP problem to call them that as well, and definitely to catalog them that way.
 * Also to Grayfell's statement "As an encyclopedia, our goal should be to cut through euphemisms and explain things directly." this is not true when it comes to controversial aspects about a topic, particularly about a BLP. There's too much thought and intent from editors nowadays that we have to lay out "shame" on BLP and other topics that are frequently put down and written negatively about in the press. WP's goal is to summarize sources and provide a neutral, impartial coverage of the topic, and for most controversial topics, this means that we cannot "explain things directly" as that breaks neutrality, instead leaving it up to the reader to decide. WP is not meant to have a moral stance on most issues, and while I'm sure most editors here agree that conspiracy theories and misinformation are bad things, we cannot let that tone be taken up by Wikivoice. --M asem (t) 12:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't yet have evidence (from what is posted here and at the Talk page of her bio) of her supporting any conspiracy theories. We have provocation and contentious statements from Coulter that are sufficiently grounded in known information and avoid the conspiracy-theoretic part of the topic (e.g., white genocide plot, false flag) to not qualify, while in some cases also being a step or two removed from an actual conspiracy theory.  Nebulously-close-to-conspiracy-theory is not conspiracy theory and certainly not for CATDEF. Sesquivalent (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)


 * We don't put people in conspiracy theorist categories unless relaible sources consistently describe them as such. If it can be reliably sourced that they are known for spreading or repeating one or more conspiracy theories, that can easily be mentioned in the text. Black Kite (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We should not be categorizing Coulter as a "conspiracy theorist" without this exact wording in sources. Sources saying that she promoted things that we know to be conspiracy theories is not the same thing (it has to be a defining trait of someone to call them a "conspiracy theorist", rather than, say, unknowing promotion of some conspiracy theories). — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Andy Ngo and sexual orientation cats
I'll keep this as a subthread since it started above although it has nothing to do with the original issue really. Per WP:BLPCAT Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.. While the first is clearly met I'm unconvinced the second is. I had a look at the source and while there is quote from the subject of being a member of a sexual minority it doesn't seem to establish relevance and I'm not convinced the earlier part on him coming out does either although it could be argued that the response to it is part of what brought him here. IMO we need better sources and an expansion in the article if we want to continue to include the sexual orientation cats. Nil Einne (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's probably just as misapplied as it is for half of the people in that category. There are reliable sources that discuss his sexuality being relevant in some vague sense: He is gay and Asian, which, qua Milo Yiannopoulos and Candace Owens, enables his supporters to deploy the rhetoric of liberal identity politics and victimization against the left, but his sexuality isn't really relevant to anything he writes, so it does seem not to be a particularly important intersection for him. I'm not so sure though that this is really a BLP issue so much as it is a (less important) overcategorization issue. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 07:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct there are a lot of shitty article. Unfortunately a lot of people think it's okay to dump living people in whatever categories they think remotely fits. We get a similar problem with birthdates and other such stuff. There's no excuse for it and on BLPN we should not ignore shitty articles we're made aware of just because there are a lot of shitty articles. And it is a BLP issue otherwise it wouldn't be explicitly mentioned in our BLP policy. While he clearly identifies as gay, it doesn't mean he likes being categorised in that fashion. Plenty of people do not feeling it pigeonholes them or whatever. While what a subject may prefer does not directly affect our coverage, this demonstrates just because something is technically true doesn't mean we don't cause harm by how we present the information. We've decided that we should not use categories of that sort when they are of no relevance to their notability because they can affect a living person in numerous ways such as that I mentioned.  That said, with the Buzzfeed News source, I'm fine with letting this stand for now since while BLP requires that "", I'm unsure how to interpret the intersection of this with next two sentences. (If the relevance is in sources but not in the text, is that serious enough to warrant removal?) I also seem to recall allegations I think either from the subject or his supporters some of the attacks have been at least partly homophobic in nature.  The particular point of the BLPCAT requirement is from memory of previous discussions to avoid the problem were people go dumping someone into the cat just because they can find some source showing self-identification when there's no relevance to what they are notable for and indeed few people who've heard of them would even be aware of it. (I would say this happens more with religious ones than sexual orientation once since given long oppression etc, non-heterosexual sexual orientations tend to receive a lot of attention whereas religion can be a case of 'They're A? Oh okay, interesting.')  Nil Einne (talk) 09:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay BLP-wise because I think him being gay is both reliably sourced and also discussed enough by reliable sources to be somewhat relevant to his public life (see e.g. the line in the Buzzfeed piece I quoted, here's another from a quick google search: They want to like him because he’s gay and a person of color. But he’s right of center and it drives them nuts.). Seems to satisfy BLPCAT and I'm also not sure we'd have any extra reason to believe that we'd harm someone describing them as an LGBT writer as opposed to describing them as LGBT and also a writer – to me those really do just mean the same thing and I don't think we'd have to worry about people feeling pigeonholed. That's, of course, separate to other overcategorization concerns. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * So we can combine sources that describe Ngo as gay/LGBT and ones that describe him as a writer, even though none call him a "gay writer", but labeling Anne Coulter as a "conspiracy theorist" requires sources that use those exact words? –dlthewave ☎ 12:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It is presumed that the category "gay writers" as presented is for writers who are gay, which is a simple intersection of two objective facts that are supported in isolation (being gay, and being a writer), similar to Category:American actors -- and not a category for writers that focus their writing on gay (LGBT) issues, which would be a characterization and would require an explicit sourced. "Conspiracy theorist" is a complete characterization - given that there are many potential levels of what one could be a conspiracy theorist - and thus why we need far more explicit sourcing to avoid OR/BLP issues from editors.
 * That said, I would tend to agree in what Nil Einne states is that "gay writers" is not necessarily a natural intersectional category, in contrast to "American actors", in that yes, there are writers that likely do not promote their sexuality on purpose, but may have let slip about that sexuality elsewhere, enough that we can document. That may make them in an LGBT category and may place them in "writers" but not necessarily call themselves "gay writers". It would likely be better to have the other type of category that I suggested "writers that focus on LGBT issues" which I would assume would include gay writers that have no problem with that labeling. If readers really want to know writers who are gay, they can use category intersection tools. These sexuality/gender identity intersectional categories probably need a large rethink at a top level for this reason. --M asem (t) 12:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Some of these race/gender/sexuality intersections are so narrowly specific I really question the worth they provide to the encyclopedia. What is actually the point in having e.g. Category:American people of Mexican-Jewish descent or Category:LGBT businesspeople from France? Busy work for people with editcountitis? &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I generally stay away from hyper-specific categories when I’m editing but I will admit that when I’m browsing they can be interesting categories to explore and if we’re being honest >90% of users never even use the categories feature at all. I don’t see a ton of worth but I see a lot more worth than I see harm (I basically see no harm to the encyclopedia from these). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting more into how we use cats rather than the BLP side, but: In a perfect world, MediaWiki would have a simple way to do category intersection searches, such that we would only categorize on "one" factor (like being a writer, being gay, etc.), and the only time we'd create an intersectional category is where there is clear evidence that reliable sources have called out this category (a concept of notability applied to categories). For example, it should be clear that there's strong interest in the intersectional category "Female politicians" or "Gay/LGBT politicians" but nearly no interest in "Male politicians" or "Heterosexual politicians", so in this perfect system with intersection searching, we may have a "female politicians" category but not the opposite "Male politicians" category though that could be obtained by intersection searching. To contrast still within this perfect world solution, we would like have both "Female actors" and "Male actors" as categories as that is a natural intersection in sourcing.
 * But we only have hodge-podge category intersection searching right now, and thus we end up with lots of these intersectional categories that may be interesting to browse (as Horse Eye's Back suggests) but at the end of the day may not reflect natural categorization aspects. To again turn to "Female politicians", we know that's of interest but because of how we set up categorization, it nearly requires "Male politicians" (and potentially "Non-binary politicians" as well). If we start having "gay writers", that would suggest we need a category for "straight writers" as well as "gay/straight " which is perhaps too much intersection category work. Hence why I think we might want to rethink these intersectional categories for both these reasons as well as the suggested BLP reasons (that is: just being gay and just being a writer doesn't necessarily make said person, in that person's view, a "gay writer"). --M asem (t) 16:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That sort of technical solution would be a dream! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding category intersections, is PetScan something you're looking for? --Animalparty! (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the type of tool that I mentioned that existed to help search category intersections, but ideally it should be something that is directly within the Mediawiki software. --M asem (t) 22:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Brad Torgersen
Brad R. Torgersen page has been subject to a slow-motion editing war concerning whether Mr. Torgersen's detailed military service and decorations are notable for the Wikipedia page of a science fiction author. References provided have been the subject's own web page and a copy of the subject's service record which was uploaded to Wikimedia by the subject. The anonymous editors were invited to provide verifiable sources to support the notability of this information for this Wikipedia page. An admin locked the page and requested the topic be hashed out on the Talk page before editing the page further. The lock has expired, and the edit war has resumed without following the admin's instructions and with no references provided to establish notability. Admin assistance requested. CiaraCat (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Removed and warned. May need extra eyes on these. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have restored a single sentence on this topic sourced to Wired. All seems peaceful now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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


 * Linda Gary, 1944-1995
 * Linda Gray, still alive (note that this is a response to the unsigned comment above). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Max Ram
has, after a number of disruptive edits to the Max Ram article, now claimed to be the subject, and asked to remove some innocuous information (the dates he spent at a club), which is properly referenced. I see no reason to do so - what are other's thoughts? GiantSnowman 19:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see the grounds to remove it either, unless there's some issue where he left the first club before 2020, and was unsigned for some period? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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


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

Jesse Dunford Wood


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


 * Try Template:Autobiography, which is exactly what this reads like. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * (EC) It seems to me if your summary is accurate it meets BLPPROD. There may be sources but if none of them mention the subject by definition they cannot support any statement made about them. Of course this could easily be challenged by someone adding one source e.g. [//www.ft.com/content/ca4a35fe-f7f4-4e80-89ef-44486db57577] which does mention the subject and supports some statement that is either added or exists in the article so it may not be a real solution. Nil Einne (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * In any case, I updated one of the URLs with an archive one and so arguably BLPPROD no longer applies as it sort of supports the statement. (It doesn't give the 'Wood' and also the way it verifies he was a participant is in a very roundabout fashion.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like the article was created by an SPA with a similar name back in 2008, and was nominated for deletion shortly thereafter by The Anome, but survived because someone was able to find a restaurant review that says nothing of what is mentioned in the article. I think standards were a lot lower back then. (Me, I want to see enough material out there to construct a decent article.) That said, there are telltale signs of an article written by the subject themselves, (ie; spatial perspectives, the particular use of adverbs and prepositions, stating things only the subject themselves could possibly know or experience, and such, to name a few) but unless there are some real sources to confer notability, I think at the very least another shot at AFD would be appropriate. Maybe it would qualify for Prod, but I've never dug too deeply. Zaereth (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Robert Swope
After being part of your search engine since before you existed... and being part of the HUMAN people who created the ability for you to do this.... WHY I AM NOT LISTED in YOUR search engine ? I was, non stop, for over 20 years, across 168 countries and thousands of business projects.... now, NOTHING. WHY! And as a Publicly Elected Councilmember in one of the top tier cities in the USA.. I DEMAND TO KNOW WHY I HAVE BEEN "CANCELLED". Please explain in writing. I do have Prints of my life over the years.... that have now gone away....  Shall I share with everyone ? I await your decisions. Robert Swope Councilman Metro Nashville Owner Sunrise Entertainment Inc.
 * Well, if you are indeed Robert Swope, the first two sources I found for you are this and this, so you may want to consider whether (if you are indeed Wikipedia-notable) having an article is even good idea... Black Kite (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Brian Wong
I’m concerned about controversial topic coverage of the alleged sexual assault by Brian Wong and the undue weight lent to the topic. My second concern is that the topic may violate WP:BLP policy based on WP:BLPCRIME and WP:SUSPECT which are sub sections under WP:BLP. Therefore, I request for assistance of uninvolved editors or an admin. First, the same topic appears three times – in the Lead section, Kliip and Criminal Charges. For instance, the text volume on sexual assaul in the Lead section is bigger than everything else. Second, and this one is quite alarming. ‘’’Violation of WP:BLP. Here it is literally: ‘’’ People accused of crime

Based on this source: https://www.adexchanger.com/mobile/kiip-brings-on-new-chief-in-wake-of-sexual-assault-charges-against-former-ceo-brian-wong/ It clearly states that this is an indictment by Grand Jury, which is a letter, where the jury admits the evidence on person might be enough to push criminal charges. Indictment is not criminal charges. Criminal charges are initiated by the prosecutor and there is no record I found about it. Here is more information about it: https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging After the prosecutor studies the information from investigators and the information they gather from talking with the individuals involved, the prosecutor decides whether to present the case to the grand jury. When a person is indicted, they are given formal notice that it is believed that they committed a crime. The indictment contains the basic information that informs the person of the charges against them. For potential felony charges, a prosecutor will present the evidence to an impartial group of citizens called a grand jury. Witnesses may be called to testify, evidence is shown to the grand jury, and an outline of the case is presented to the grand jury members. And here is more from the reliable source: https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/what-happens-after-an-indictment-in-a-criminal-case/ After a grand jury indictment, a defendant has the opportunity to enter a plea. A guilty plea could lead to a quick sentencing hearing or the imposition of a pre-arranged plea bargain with prosecutors. If a defendant pleads not guilty, the case will move forward to trial. It is still possible, though, to arrange a plea bargain after a guilty plea, and all the way until a verdict is reached at trial. It is important to note that an indictment is not a statement of guilt -- it is only a determination that enough evidence exists to move forward with charges. If a defendant has yet to be arrested, he or she could be following the indictment. For defendants already in jail after their arrest and unable to bail themselves out, they could remain there after an indictment to await trial. Or a judge may set the conditions of their pre-trial release. From Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#California ‘’’My point is: ‘’’ 1) Grand Jury is not a Court 2) Brian Wong is hardly a public figure according to the US definition 3) There is a source that confirms he was indicted by the Grand Jury but there are no sources (to the best of my knowledge) that Brian Wong was convicted by any court. And we must accentuate that only the conviction by the Court makes a person guilty. But the texts in the Lead sections uses wrong definitions based on the fact that some editors probably do not know the difference between the Court trial and Grand Jury indictment.  Third, I’d like to detail on the sources used and information retrieved: Summary section:
 * A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.
 * United States Department of Justice:
 * As of March 2019, the criminal charges were pending and no trial had yet been held.


 * There is no record whatsoever that any criminal charges are pending at all, so it is not clear where does this sentence come from – from a hidden source or someone’s imaginative mind.

It is also not clear whether the editor retrieved the fact or did original research by leaving this sentence. The source is primary and I wasn’t able to find that information based only on one court record: https://norcalrecord.com/stories/518213187-case-activity-for-the-meet-group-inc-vs-kiip-inc-on-oct-31 My concern: PRIMARY and NOR The same source is used for the Kiip section, where the information simply duplicates the info in the Lead section with no additional details.
 * Within six months of Wong's dismissal as its CEO, Kiip went bankrupt and was shut down by its creditors

Shouldn’t it be renamed “Indictment”? Or, probably based on the WP:BLP, to be reduced to a minimum? I shared my arguments and once again I’m asking uninvolved editors or an admin to assist with the page review. Idunnox3 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Criminal charges section
 * I'm not sure if Wong qualifies as a public figure and believe that discussion of the indictment should only be limited to its impact on his career/company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Dan Connolly (computer scientist)
I'm working at Agoric now, no longer at KUMC.

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

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

DanConnolly (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Updated, although Wikipedia isn't really meant to be a CV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:51, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

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


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

Users have attempted to add this information into the article. An administrator,, (as well as others, in fairness) have repeatedly reverted these additions, as well as revision-deleting prior entries of the page containing this information, citing BPD/WP:BLP. The claim here is apparently that this is a violation of BPD/BLP, BPD/BLP is a "strict" policy and that we need to wait for an autopsy or official report (which may never be released), rather than rely on what reliable sources have already reported. BLP does not prohibit including negative information -- such as drug use or overdoses -- if reported in reliable sources. See Kate Quigley, Keith McCants. This is also giving other users the impression that we can't even discuss the information. It'd be helpful to set the record straight here on whether this is permitted as well as appropriate to include. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 06:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)


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

Adding a line stating that "His death is being investigated as a possible drug overdose" doesn't seem at all unreasonable, given the multiple high-quality RS saying that. Also, in terms of the subject's privacy, his struggles with addiction have received significant RS coverage, and Williams spoke about them himself. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My gut (which is not particularly reliable) says that this is more of a WP:NOTNEWS situation, and we should wait for some sort of finality on the issue. In ten years, what will matter will be the conclusion reached and not whether the investigation occurred.  As ever, if consensus is against me, I understand.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Including widely reported and well referenced facts in articles is the basis for Wikipedia to exist. Without including widely reported facts, what is the value of Wikipedia?1peterk (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * It is clear there are two camps here: The "include the well referenced facts" camp and the "keep the facts private, even if widely reported" camp.  e.g. The "don't expect Wikipedia to have the story" camp.  Is there any method to reach consensus?  In my experience, the deletionists always win, though the talk pages do tend to include what the articles might or might not.  As a user, this means always reading the talk page to see what has been deleted.  As I write, I am unsure how thoroughly the "delete everything" people can go, if they have a capability to erase article and talk history.1peterk (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As an arch deletionist, I will not rest until Wikipedia consists solely of a single disambiguation page with nothing but broken links. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * To the arch deletionists, what represents this vaunted "finality" you mention? Clearly, the many media outlets that have published the investigation facts are not "final" enough for your camp.1peterk (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, Wikipedia is not the news, and as such, generally I would try to avoid things that are likely to be superseded in short order. Either this will be substantiated or a different cause of death will be announced--which will then be appropriate to include.  In the smaller (but possible) chance that there is no further information, then it may be appropriate to include that the investigation happened, if it has become clear that there will be no other resolution.  As ever, though, reasonable minds may differ and if the weight is consensus is against me, that's okay.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS needs to be re-named, because it is so frequently mis-cited. WP:NOTNEWS stands for the proposition that Wikipedia should not present original or routine (weather, traffic) reporting. That is not what is being proposed here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple parts to NOTNEWS, and while one part deals with not including routine reporting, the second part involves "enduring coverage" and avoiding news-style immediate updates that don't necessarily contribute to the enduring coverage of a topic. Should Williams be found to have died from OD, then that can be added, but currently it is speculation by investigators; for newspapers that worry about the day to day, they have no issue with this, but that type of speculation doesn't meet enduring coverage for us, particularly when coupled with BLP (and application to recently deceased). --M asem (t) 13:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikieditor19920, if by your lights WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply (which is a reasonable stance), I would still say my position is backed up by WP:10YT. To my mind, there's simply no reason to rush this one.  Let thing evolve a bit.  As ever, quite possible I am wrong.  Cheers and happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, bringing an issue to BLPN for discussion is the opposite of a "rush." If by "rush" you mean we should wait a year before adding any information, then Wikipedia would only have about 100 articles, 20 of which would be stubs, if it had followed that molasses-like pace from the beginning.
 * There's pretty much no question here that the circumstances of his death will be relevant in ten years (which in of itself is a very rough guideline).
 * Note that this is a private individual, and the notion that we'll ever get some sort of "closure" in the form of an autopsy or toxicology report is very unlikely unless it is leaked to the press (in which case I can imagine the same rather misguided arguments about "privacy" being made). I think peopleWikieditor19920 (talk) 17:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree we're not likely to see a toxicology report, but I think it's likely we may see reports in reliable sources attributing a cause of death, rather than an investigation thereof. But I don't think we're likely to agree here, so all the best.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I think that the benefit of this exchange (and maybe we'll both agree on this) is that reasonable people can disagree on whether inclusion is appropriate. It is not automatically and dogmatically a "BLP violation" to include or discuss this content, as was being enforced by the prior admin. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 18:20, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The admin business is a bit above my pay grade, but I will wholeheartedly agree that reasonable minds can differ on this one entirely in good faith. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone is allowed to question the actions of an admin. WP:ADMINACCT. Especially when they are misapplying rules at a page under threat of sanction. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to discuss administrative actions, try the administrator directly and if you feel your concerns aren't sufficiently answered take it to one of the ANs or arbcom depending on what exactly you feel needs to happen. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I think it would be better get an answer on the BLP issue first. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

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

https://g.co/kgs/xrT8CQ
Linda Ann Gray was born 12 September 1940 in Santa Monica California.

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

PLEASE TAKE DOWN THIS INFLAMMATORY ARTICLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IrelandCalling1976 (talk • contribs)
 * Again, Linda Gray (alive) and Linda Gary (died in 1995). The thing you are highlighting is Google Knowledge Graph, which does seem to be incorrect, but we have no control over that. &#8209;&#8209;Volteer1 (talk) 06:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We have zero control over Google's abuse of its own platform. Yell at Google. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Jéské Couriano 06:49, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


 * , that is Google, not WP. They get it wrong sometimes, as does WP. At the bottom right corner of the knowledge graph is a link that says "report." Try using it, perhaps it'll work. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Kevin M. Kruse
Could use some opinions on this page; a user has added a “false claims” section that gives me qualms. Happy to be wrong, if that’s the community decision. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say you were clearly correct in your initial appraisal that this section represents obvious WP:SYNTH and therefore a WP:BLP violation. This unfortunately appears to be a pattern of behavior that the new user in question is determined to apply across as broad an array of articles as possible (just a few of many possible diffs:, , ). Generalrelative (talk) 05:15, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I removed the material again. While it may be that the person was wrong, and that one can point to reliable sources to show that they were wrong, I fully agree that it is OR to point out that the person was wrong in Wikivoice; we'd need other sources to say that was an error or an issue. Otherwise it looks like we in wikivoice are purposely fingerpointing. --M asem (t) 06:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Roscoe Dash
Hi I'm tour Dj, DJ Fly Guy referenced in wiki with a former artist/client of mine. I made an edit to source my name to the page in creating my own page and the edits are being denied but I'm mentioned in his wiki. Can we add the edits successfully? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IAmDJFlyGuy (talk • contribs)
 * Hello . Just because you're mentioned in another article, doesn't mean that you meet the notability requirements for having an article. To further understand those requirements, please see WP:MUSICBIO.  In addition, you shouldn't be creating an article about yourself, as you have a conflict of interest. See WP:YOURSELF for further detail on this. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

Erin Gavin


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


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

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

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

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

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

Harry Partridge
I'd appreciate if another experienced editor or two could review this article, which has been written almost entirely by User:101.50.250.88. I believe it contains several BLP violations, specifically in verifiability and sourcing. The IP editor is continuing to edit war and bludgeon the talk page as well as the AfD that has been opened. –– FormalDude  talk  06:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Michelle Wu
I was thinking about posting at COIN, but that we get a more neutral article is more important to me than holding the editor's feet to the fire. Until this series of edits, contributed 87.6% of this content, in 413 edits. The article is completely bloated, highly promotional, and, above all, sourced in an outrageous manner to the campaign websites of the candidate. Before that last series of edits, no fewer than 27 of the "references" were to michelleforboston.com, and so every single one of her positions, all points of her platform, seem to have been included--alongside trivia like her fluent Chinese and rusty Frenc (note the edit summary: Wu is not Melania Trump) and tenuous BLP info like this. It would be great if some other editors can either weigh in on the talk page (where I was drawn after seeing some edits by User:Ganesha811), or simply by pruning the ridiculously large article according to acceptable standards. That includes rectifying statements (by another editor) like this here, where regular standards would dictate simply this: if there are no secondary sources, promotional material is NOT a substitute. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Really? All of her policy stances are in there? She has several policy outlines that are 50 pages+. Odd, don't recall putting all of that in there. Honestly, drop the hyperbole. It's offensive to me. SecretName101 (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And as several people have pointed out, her own stated/written stances are probably among the best sources for her stances. That's not being "promotional", when carefully framed. SecretName101 (talk) 20:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPSELFPUB pretty much covers this: her position as from her website are unduly self-promotional, and we should not be heavily relying on that site for covering them. --M asem (t) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow, that article definitely needs some trimming and summarization. Nearly 10,000 words. We should be looking at secondary sources interpreting her policies and summarizing their words, rather than using primary sources. That's a big bite to take though, a lot of work trimming that down. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Especially since SecretName keeps reverting. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * WP:BLPCRIME seems pretty clear, just follow that. Zerotalk 11:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am familiar with that, which reads:'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.'
 * The crux here is that a small consortium of editors insists on saying that since 2 or 3 newspaper sources state his culpability as a fact, we report that as a fact, regardless of the fact that there is no record I can find which convicted him of it. Worse, a reporter stated that official Israeli sources refused to clarify what charges were pending against him since 2002. The problem is not following wiki's strict rules, but in being reverted if one does apply them, as here. Hence this request.Nishidani (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * There are reliable sources that explicitly say he was serving a jail sentence for that specific mass murder: eg.: https://www.jta.org/2021/09/09/israel/6-palestinian-terrorists-use-crawl-space-to-escape-maximum-security-israeli-prison - "He has been in and out of Israeli prisons for most of his life, including a sentence for his supervision of a terrorist attack in 2002 in the city of Beit Shean that killed six." Other sources explicitly say he was behind the attack, masterminded it, planned it, or supervised it. Inf-in MD (talk)
 * We must go by reliable sources and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency generally qualifies. The problem with the article you cite,
 * "Cnaan Liphshiz, 6 Palestinian terrorists use crawl space to escape maximum-security Israeli prison,' Jewish Telegraphic Agency 9 September 9, 2021"
 * Is that the author happens to be notoriously slipshod (long memories of his many articles, all extremely POV). In this article for example he states:-
 * "Zubeidi, 45, was arrested in 2019 for shooting at Israelis in the West Bank. He has been in and out of Israeli prisons for most of his life, including a sentence for his supervision of a terrorist attack in 2002 in the city of Beit Shean that killed six."
 * Zubeidi has been since 2002 imprisoned by Israel for close to 2 years, 2019-2021 on charges unrelated to Beit She'an (source=Judah Ari Gross, Former terror leader charged with carrying out fresh shooting attacks Times of Israel  20 May 2019). Before that date (2002), he had spent 6 months in an Israeli jail for throwing stones aged 13,4 and a half years from 15 to 19 for throwing firebombs, and 1 year 3 months for stealing cars, a total of 6 years and 3 months in Israeli jails in his youth, prior to 2002. For the subsequent 20 years he never served time in an Israeli jail, until his arrest for terrorism in 2019. 8 years and 3 months of Israeli imprisonment over 45 years, does not, pace the ever-exaggerating Liphshiz, translate honestly into for most of his life.  That makes the following sentence even more suspect, since, in the public record as known so far, there is no evidence he served 'a sentence for his supervision of a terrorist attack in 2002 in the city of Beit Shean' in an Israeli prison'. That is counterfactual since, from the time of the Beit She'an incident in 2002 until 2019 he never did time in any Israeli prison. Such slipshod journalism, which contradicts the known public record, makes that source unreliable. The 2019 indictment refers to events from 2003 (after Beit She'an) down to that date, and not to Beit She'an. I have no problems with stating Zubeidi was either indicted for Beit She'an or served time for that incident in an Israeli prison if we can have a reliable source stating the result of an Israeli court inquiry. So far, multiple google searchs have failed to fish up any Israeli newspaper report that such a judicial result exists. So BLP again demands we remove it, unless we get solid confirmation. What is required is not careless journalism, but Israeli journalism referring specifically  to a sentence in an Israeli court. Perhaps he was sentenced in absentia, who knows. But we need proof. Nishidani (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, we are not a court of law and do not need proof, we need reliable sources. And as you write- "We must go by reliable sources and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency generally qualifies". Inf-in MD (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This person is a public figure so there is no problem to include the accusation as the reported by WP:RS --Shrike (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Given that we do not have any confirmed conviction on record, but are relying on RSes that say his was behind the 2002 attacks, the best that should be done is to make sure that this is not said as outright factually in wikivoice. Eg right now the lede says but should probably be  That remains consistent with the RSes but leaves the issue of lack of any confirmed conviction from the pre-2010 period (which should have reported it and should not be hard to find if it actually happened) as open. --M asem  (t) 14:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and this alternate phrasing has already been suggested on the talk page, only to be flat out rejected by the person who started this discussion. Inf-in MD (talk)
 * Don't distort this discussion. I rejected rephrasing ZZ being a perpetrator (sourced) to being 'suspected' as the mastermind, because the latter is unsourced. This is a valid technical point, not orneriness.  Several Israeli newspapers 20 years after the event assert this as a fact, nor a suspicion, and that jars with all we know about his penal convictions and time in jail. Masem is correct that this violates BLP policy. They are also correct that there must be a record of such a suspicion or conviction, if it was ever voiced for that period. I have pursued this relentlessly and cannot find any indication that he spent time in an Israeli jail from post-Beit She'an times until 2019, when the charges did not apparently include mention of that incident. So I also concur with Masem's view that that kind of visible public notification ought to turn up if it exists. I disagree only with the suggestion that we change the assertion this is a fact, to one of suspicion he was behind it. So far no sources have been adduced for this either. One cannot use a source that asserts this as a fact by paraphrasing that it is a suspicion: that would contradict the source, and fall under WP:OR- Nishidani (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * However, I have suggested the wording "suspected" which is different from saying "charged with" or "convicted", both the latter which I would expect to see legal evidence or affirmation from Israeli enforcing via RSes that these were made. But that multiple RSes saying in their words he was the mastermind behind the 2002 attack, it is fair to consider that a possible contested statement w/o any evidence of a law enforcement statement, but we can properly ascribe the RSes statement as "suspected" without failing BLP. --M asem (t) 16:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Besides a zillion sources saying he was behind it, Zubeidi himself took responsibility for the Beit She'an in a 2005 interview: . 11Fox11 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ToI (and Here as well) is more careful than some other sources in how it phrases things. It's clear that most of the past allegations are based on "belief" (dutifully repeated) and the current trial is still ongoing.Selfstudier (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Zillion? Don't be 'zilly', Were that so, editors here wouldn't have taken so much time finding material, which in any case was complicated because, (a) two sources say he was the perpetrator/mastermind (b) one source states that he was convicted and sentenced and did time in an Israeli jail. Neither were credible. However, the source you now bring up is credible. Sarah Leibowitz, Omri Assenheim, King of Jenin. NRG Maariv 11/2/2004) It has Zubeidi assuming responsibility for the Beit She’an killings. There is no trial, no verdict, no prison sentence, as sources cited have asserted. Even in the 2019 indictment, there is no mention of this as a confession. It may be true, it may be a boast to secure further his reputation in Jenin as 'the king of Jenin'. So whatever the truth, all one can say is that in an interview in 2005 with two Israeli journalists he claimed or assumed responsibility. The journalists cited from 2021 take him at his word, one presumes.  We can't per BLP: we can only note that he assumed responsibility, since other that this statement there is no legal document to determine whether his statement is correct or not. Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Z::Zillion? Don't be zilly, Were that so, editors here wouldn't have taken so much time finding material, which in any case was complicated because, (a) two sources say he was the perpetrator/mastermind (b) one source states that he was convicted and sentenced and did time in an Israeli jail. Neither were credible. However, the source you now bring up is credible. Sarah Leibowitz, Omri Assenheim, King of Jenin. (Heb)NRG Maariv 11/2/2004) It has Zubeidi assuming responsibility for the Beit She’an killings. There is no trial, no verdict, no prison sentence, as sources cited have asserted. Even in the 2019 indictment, there is no mention of this as a confession. It may be true, it may be a boast to secure further his reputation as 'the king of Jenin' . So whatever the truth, all one can say is that in an interview in 2005 with two Israeli journalists he claimed or assumed responsibility.
 * Since the parties involved here can be read as pushing a POV, against or for Zubeidi, lastly, I would suggest that Masem or any other independent third party have the final word as to how this be best resolved in BLP terms. Whatever that conclusion  turns to be, even against what I think the correct construal of the new source, I'll honour it.Nishidani (talk) 20:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My reserve here is the same with Naphtali Bennett's remark:' "I already killed lots of Arabs in my life, and there is absolutely no problem with that."One does not know whether this is true, or false (it was recorded, he denied later after being censured etc. That is irrelevant. The proper thing is simply to attribute the statement and leave it at that, without assuming either that it is true or a boast (which I privately tend to think probable, but that is neither here nor there).Nishidani (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Where do either one of those sources mention the Bet She'an mass murder? And why would it even matter when he has already acknowledged his responsibility, per 11Fox11? Inf-in MD (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making my point for me, the articles quite happily point to the prior misdeeds, trials and imprisonment of the others but not Zubeidi (they content themselves with "notorious"). As for the self-incrimination, you have heard of that, I suppose? Maybe he was just bragging for effect, or trying to impress his friends, or just trying to pi** off the Israelis, idk. Absent a conviction, it means nothing.Selfstudier (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't prove he did it of course, from a legal point of view, but it does very strongly suggest it should ne mentioned in the article, as the basis for the suspicion, or with something like "he has bragged about being responsible for the mass murder in Bet She'an". Inf-in MD (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Muskaan Nancy James
Constant Date Of Birth Changes Sources clearly indicate she was born in 1972 but someone is constantly changing it into 1993.


 * What WP:BLP-good sources says when she was born? See WP:DOB. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

B. Wongar
In the current version of this BLP we have persistent and irrational tendency to disparage the subject based on attempts of some (T. Keneally, J. Hanrahan) to debunk Wongar's work as a literary hoax. There are numerous proofs, implicit or explicit, that this tendency has lost currency, no matter how many times was repeated. Questions of Wongar's authorial identity and legitimacy came from people who are not Australian Aborigines and are an insignificant minority in the world of literary criticism. Wongar is a world-renown writer and humanist recognized and supported by the great names of world literature: S. Beckett, S. de Beauvoir, J-P Sartre, H Boell, P. Handke. Wongar's books are translated in 13 languages and over one million copies sold. Wongar won numerous awards for his work across the globe. Among them the most prestigious award in Australia, the Australia Council Writers’ Emeritus Award in 1997

Request 1. Remove Cultural appropriation category. If wanting more support for this request please, read Ann McGrath: In Search of the Never-Never: Mickey Dewar: Champion of History Across Many Genres, ANU Press, Apr 9, 2019 page 214 and after. Needles to say, keeping this category we create an attack page which is forbidden by BLP policy.

The current text is nonsensically tag bombed by and  tags. All text is fully covered by references, and I even added the new ones in order to strenghten the content. But each time I added the new references and warned about nonsense, my text changes get reverted without any justification on the talk page. Not a single was ever justified on the talk page.

Request 2. Prevent tag bombing.

One user claims: The article has multiple issues. One of them The biography needs to be cleaned up to indicate that the entire backstory is based on (some of) his own claims. Nothing like this. His own claims are entered only if already being accepted by biographers and literary critics.

Request 3. Remove the The article has multiple issues tag and ignore the request above given.--Bocin kolega (talk) 21:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

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


 * @Liz the article has already been through an AFD and a GA review. I am thinking, bring it up with the main contributor who is still active and quite prolific. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Luo Qianqian
This is somewhere between BLP-compliant and g10. I don't want to suggest g10 because it's not made up; but it does claim more than we should be claiming, and is largely unsourced. Could someone take a look? Usedtobecool ☎️ 08:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Yosyf Zisels
Very disappointing to read such a pejorative and highly biased article about a living person who is highly regarded. The article has been actively edited this past year and subjective language has been used in quoting individuals who are hostile towards Zisels, with no countervailing quotes from individuals who respect him and his efforts. It comes across at times as a smear job. I have no idea what can be done to improve the situation and am surprised that Wikipedia has placed no notice at the top, as it usually does with articles that do not follow its guidelines or are insufficiently objective.
 * There is nothing good in the expansions. I have restored the stub. An admin might consider revdel. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Lisa Page
I'm not overly familiar with this person but the article reads like it is solely about a victim of harassment, so I wonder if WP:VICTIM applies, or if it should be expanded to minimize that section's contents. It could at least use another set of eyes.Citing (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It feels like her name should be a searchable term to some Trump-based event, though I have no idea what that would be, as she appeared to have been a major player in that event in scanning through news headlines. (PUBLICFIGURE of a sort comes up here) I fully agree that a standalone article on her feels wrong without any apparent coverage of her prior to 2016, and any coverage about her is related directly to the event and aftermath (eg BLP1E appyling for the most part). Just that where to redirect this, I don't know. --M asem (t) 19:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I've redirected the article to List of FBI controversies for now. Citing (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems best place for it now. --M asem (t) 14:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Jolie Stahl
The NPOV challenges to this entry lack substance. The principal editor Rdannin is a journalist and published non-fiction author. His relation to the subject is irrelevant. The entry contains no controversial statements or assertions of value worthy of challenge. It is a straightforward narrative on an artist's career, properly referenced, authoritatively documented, and tastefully presented. The challenges are frivolous and ought to be dismissed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdannin (talk • contribs)


 * Regardless of whether the material is unchallenged, the material added (that has been reverted) is clearly subjective and fails NPOV because it lacks sourcing to reliable sources. And if this is material added by Rdannin based on work written by Rdannin, that fails COI aspects, even if that material was sourced. --M asem  (t) 15:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Rdannin, you are not the owner of that article and Wikipedia is not a place for promotion. Rather than reverting to your version of the article, you may propose edits on the article talk page. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Please identify any promotional words, phrases or assertions and I will make the appropriate changes.Rdannin (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Rdannin, please have a look at the conflict of interest guideline, specifically the part on writing about yourself, family, friends. You are strongly advised not to edit the article directly. The issues will be and should be resolved by an independent user. Until then the maintenance templates shall remain. – Njd-de (talk) 16:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

NJD-DE's obsession with this entry reveals a personal bias against the citation of _Black Pilgrimage to Islam_, a book about a religious group that was a peered-reviewed, scholarly work published in 2002 by Oxford University Press. The DPOV has nothing to do with the inoffensive and objective subject matter of the artist's page. You're using a Wiki formality to exercise prejudice here. The COI in this case belongs to NJD-DE. Please cease this harassment or I will report this in the appropriate space. Rdannin (talk) 17:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please avoid personal attacks; the issue is that you appear to have a COI here so any contributions you add are questionable and need to be reviewed. The section about "Black Pilgrimage to Islam" may be valid with those sources but that needs to be checked and reviewed by other editors without any COI aspects, and Njd-de is absolutely right to remove it at this point due to the given COI factors in play. --M asem (t) 17:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * For obvious reasons, I find that to be odd conclusions about me. I am not obsessed with that article, and I don't have a bias against the book Black Pilgrimage to Islam itself. I am however biased against COI-editors adding promotional content and referencing it with primary sources. If Rdannin or any other user can present anything that suggests I would have a conflict of interest with that book, topic, or article subject, then I will be happy to listen. I strongly believe that won't be necessary though. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

NJD-DE, this is not a personal attack rather an observation about your pattern of criticism and dodging the alleged issues. I asked you to identify the specific COI issues and offer the remedies. Instead you initiated a virtual shell game and by refusing to substantiate your issues while simultaneously signaling the book as an offending detail, I could only conclude that you wanted it removed from the entry. Quelle surprise! There is no promotion going on here, merely a cross-reference to a legitimate, peered-reviewed publication and multiple authoritative citations thereupon. Stop acting like a totalitarian censor and state once and for all how you expect me to remedy this sogennant probleme. Rdannin (talk) 19:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Could we please keep this discussion in one place? I was notified there would be a thread at the admins' noticeboard - which I can't find. Then there's comments critizing me on the article talk page, and posts on Justlettersandnumbers talk page. And last but not least this discussion here.
 * As far as it concerns the allegations against me, I am rather surprised to read them. There are multiple editors (me,, ) who have pointed out that there are COI issues, and there is no need to mention specific promotional phrases to substantiate this. Using a primary source by the article subject to corroborate that her work is of cultural and social significance or saying that the subject's book is the first successful and comprehensive ethnographic study without providing any sources for that is promotional and does not live up to the standards of a Wikipedia article. I made it very clear that I don't have any bias against that book itself, and never called the book promotional. However, the way the book was mentioned in the article was promotional though.
 * I cannot understand that I am being accused of having deleted the comment. I don't recollect having done such a thing, and my contribution history is proof for that.
 * Also regarding being offered a solution, I would like to remind that this has already been explained: The issues will be and should be resolved by an independent user. Until then the maintenance templates shall remain. – NJD-DE (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, I deleted your posts on my talk-page with a promise to look at this discussion, which I've now done. Rdannin, I'm still not exactly clear what your complaint is here, but as several people have told you above, you have (by our definition) a clear and definite conflict of interest in relation to this topic, and you are strongly advised not to edit the article directly. If there are changes that you think should be made to the page, we recommend that you post a request on the talk-page of the article, adding a request edit template if you like. This is not in any way a criticism of you personally, but a standard practice that we have evolved to cope with situations like this one.


 * In my opinion, the book you wrote together should certainly be mentioned in the article (it's published by about the most reputable university press of all), but is not an independent reliable source and should not be used to support other content in the page. And that brings us to the main problem: the content in the page is not written in a neutral encyclopaedic tone, and is not adequately supported by the sources. For example, a statement that "Beginning a period of extensive travel and journalistic work in 1985 Stahl took up aquarelle and collage" is apparently cited to this book about statues in West Africa; on which page of that work is Stahl discussed? Wikipedia reports what is already covered in independent reliable sources, and nothing else; unsourced or improperly sourced material is routinely removed. Please allow editors who understand this to work to improve the article. Thank you, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ping fail, sorry ! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment Justlettersandnumbers. This has been exactly the point I have been trying to make. I was never against mentioning the book. I am just against including reviews of it when we don't have any sources for that.– NJD-DE (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Well,, if the reviews are in major published sources (solid academic journals, national newspapers and the like) they should be easy enough to track down; I'd be prepared to spend a little time on that if it would help to calm the waters. I looked briefly at the article; there are grave problems with sourcing, but – to my eyes – the more serious matter may be lack of notability, which I'm just not seeing. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an article in the Washington Post about that book. And The Journal of African American History seems to have a book review as well. Both of them focus on Dannin's work though (the written text), and not Stahl's photographies. I have concerns regarding notability as well, and honestly don't have the energy or motivation right now to write something for that article. – NJD-DE (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Re Bradley Page in Killing of Roberta 'Bibi' Lee
Bradley Page killed Bibi Lee and was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. In his confession he admitted having sex with her body after the killing. About a decade after his release he committed indicent exposure. My entry regarding the indecent exposure was deleted, with the editor stating that this and the subject of the article are unrelated. On the talk page I made an argument why that info should be retained, arguing that there is a relation of the two events, pinging the editor who made the deletion. There was no response. Now I realise that based on the notability of the killing, the killer is also notable, meaning that the indicent exposure is relevant in his life and should be retained even if it was unrelated to the killing. I do not want to get into a delete/undelete battle as I'm busy on other sections of the article. I'm here to get an opinion on the relevance on the info at hand. Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have commented at Talk: Killing of Roberta 'Bibi' Lee. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  18:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Noah Oppenheim
Serious issues BLP issues in the lead of Noah Oppenheim, previously resolved following a BLPN discussion here, have been re-opened after an editor recently reverted the lead without discussion, although leaving an explanation at Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1.

I believe members of this noticeboard should be given the opportunity to weigh in again, as they involve important BLP matters of WP: Impartial and WP:Balance regarding a high-profile person. I am a paid representative of NBC News, where the subject of the article is president.

To avoid forum shopping and splitting the discussion, I suggest the discussion take place at Talk:Noah Oppenheim/Archive 1. Thanks BC1278 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed bot task to update infobox nationality parameter
Your input would be appreciated at Bots/Requests for approval/BattyBot 61, a request to change values in the nationality field from country names to nationalities in various biography infoboxes (e.g. United Kingdom or United Kingdom → British, United States or United States → American). Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Miriam Toukan
Miriam Toukan refers to herself (on her web-site) as being "Born in July 6th in I’billin, a palestinian village in the Galilee (Israel) to a palestinian christian family."(About Mirian Toukan)

Is it then ok to refer to her as "an Arab-Israeli" singer, with the edit-line: "Regardless of she may-self identify, the simple fact is that Miriam Toukan (like all residents of I'billin) is indeed an Arab citizen of Israel, not of the Palestinian Authority. Thus there is nothing controversial or POV as defining her as Arab-Israeli in this article. However, in deference to the the fact she defines herself as being "from a Palestinian Christian family" on her personal website, I have left this phrase in the text of the article. Please do not further delete my edits"? (link)

I might add that the term "Arab-Israeli" is a term that many Palestinian citizen of Israel detest, and that it redirects to Arab citizens of Israel --Huldra (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONTEXTBIO provides guidance that she should be labelled as Israeli only. 11Fox11 (talk) 16:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted 11Fox11's nonsensical edit - her website is clear as to how she identifies, and even if the term "Arab-Israeli" is removed it should still be made clear in the lede sentence that she is (and identifies in the first sentence of her bio as) being from a Christian background and a Palestinian village in Galilee. WP:BLP is more important than your ethnic squabbles. Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:CONTEXTBIO guideline : "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable" and "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless it is relevant to the subject's notability.". This means she should be labelled as Israeli in the opening sentence. You also removed sections from the article, and I was about to add that she was in Kokhav Nolad in 2007. Her ethnic background can be expanded outside of the opening paragraph. I also fail to see why you removed Category:Israeli singers from the article, are you contesting she is Israeli? The bio on her webpage states that the village is in Israel. Israeli is a simple statement of citizenship, which leaves out all ethnic squabbles from the opening paragraph in accordance with CONTEXTBIO. 11Fox11 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have simply reverted your edit as it was problematic. If you think there are parts of that edit that are useful and don't have an issue with self-identification and BLP, feel free to restore them. Black Kite (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Black kite, it is your edit that is problematic as it is directly against Manual of Style/Biography (CONTEXTBIO). 11Fox11 (talk) 17:20, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Reducing her lede line to "Israeli" and excising the background that she personally identifies as is a BLP issue. And actually, you're wrong anyway - CONTEXTBIO says "Similarly, previous nationalities or the place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability."  ... which it is. Black Kite (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And "previous nationalities or the place of birth" is relevant how? Do you have a source stating she acquired or lost State of Palestine citizenship? She was born in 1982 in Israel, in a town that has been Israeli since 1948. As far as I can see, she has held Israeli citizenship from birth and has resided only in Israel. 11Fox11 (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Jerusalem Post calls her "Palestinian Israeli singer Miriam Toukan". Of course, JP is hardly the most reliable source, still.Selfstudier (talk) 18:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely correct in that statement. But let's just consider the first line of her own biography - "Arabic singer, song writer, lawyer, a multidisciplinary artist and peace activist, engaged in peace activism, human rights protests and activities since her youth through her musical and law career.  Born in July 6th in I’billin, a Palestinian village in the Galilee (Israel) to a Palestinian christian family".  Yet you felt the need to excise the words "Arabic" and "Palestinian" from the lede, despite the fact that this very first line of her own bio uses them extremely prominently.  Why would that be, I wonder? Black Kite (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Is her ethnicity relevant to her notability per WP:ETHNICITY? I do not know anything about this person; hence the question. Perhaps there should be an RfC over this matter. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Harlan J. Brothers
I happened to come across this page when I was searching up List of amateur mathematicians. I am concerned this page is about a relatively unknown person, who created the page as an autobiography. There are two editors who have made significant contributions to this page:


 * User:Hjb, who I suspect is Brothers himself given the initials, and who created the page in 2004
 * User:GiantSteps, who I suspect is a collaborator of Brothers or knows him personally.

In any case, this autobiography is poorly written as well, and reads like a vanity article.

Edit: I note that there was a discussion in 2006 on whether to delete, and it was decided to keep. That was 15 years ago, perhaps there has been a policy change around vanity articles? Also, not much of the original language has changed and it still reads like a vanity article, despite suggestions to tighten the writing back in 2006. Furthermore, many of the reasons for "keep" referenced that he has patents/publications; IMO this is a low bar. There are countless cross-disciplinary individuals who publish outside their main disciplines.--LStravaganz (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * AfD has advanced a lot since 2006. I would be tempted to send this article there. Black Kite (talk) 17:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. I might do just that. LStravaganz (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * When I enter "Harlan Brothers John Knox" into a Google Books search, I find that at least eight books about mathematics discuss the technique they discovered for approximating e (mathematical constant). Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Two replies I have to this:
 * If you actually look into those books, many of them don't actually reference Brother's work on e itself. For instance, the Larson textbook includes only a footnote instructing students to look up his paper if they are interested about e series in general; it does not actually mention what his work is. In fact, the background sections of Brother's 1998 paper contains a lot of previously-known e-series, so I suspect the textbook was actually guiding students towards these established results, rather than Brothers' own results. Other books such as this one contains only a small biography among others about amateur mathematiciains in general. In any case, being mentioned in "at least eight books" is not enough to pass the WP:ACADEMIC notability test, which is even more important given the page is an autobiography, especially when the mentions in most of those books are just passing comments.
 * He gets mentioned mostly because of the "wow" factor of working with Euler's constant e, which captures the popular science imagination. However, within the mathematical discipline itself, the corpus of his work is relatively trivial, and outdone by countless academics or even non-mathematicians who collaborate outside their fields (eg. physicists). His Google Scholar citations are also tiny, with his "groundbreaking" work on e receiving only 34 citations in total since its publication 23 years ago. This is so small that it reflects his contributions as relatively miniscule and unknown in the field; certainly not deserving of a Wikipedia autobiography.
 * I think what I mean to say is that on the surface, he seems impressive (he's been published, etc.) but in the context of academia, this is really not that notable. Regular academics are often required to publish multiple papers every year, receiving hundreds of citations each. Do we write biographies about all of them? -- LStravaganz (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Andrey Kostin: Defamation in the article
Hello. Andrey Kostin's article contains information that is slanderous and defames the honor and dignity of this person (Corruption allegations). This section is based on the journalistic investigation of Alexei Navalny. Some major news outlets reprinted this investigation without analysis or evaluation. The only analysis of this investigation can be found in this source - The Bell, which states that "Analyzing the investigation, The Bell concludes that it is impossible to draw a conclusion about the owners of the plane and yacht from the data published by Navalny, as well as who paid for the journalist's travels". This information is defamatory and violates the rule BLP. It says that "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment". 2A00:1FA1:1DC:DAC8:1115:4080:5BB2:D0D8 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * While I can understand your concerns, your post here likely runs afoul of another issue, Wikipedia's clear ban on legal threats--see WP:NLT. I would recommend you withdraw and restate this if you would like it taken seriously and to avoid sanction.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not threatening anyone. I wrote here because I saw a violation of the rules. I'm sorry if my address is poorly read somewhere, I don't know English well. 2A00:1FA1:40BD:7714:FDF6:C55C:2EE9:7CF4 (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the clarification. You're on the right track--saying 'this article violates BLP policy for these reasons' is the correct approach.  When you start tossing around the legal jargon -- "slander," "defames," etc. you can reasonably be inferred to be threatening that legal action is possible.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I understood. Sorry for my abruptness. I will ask you to evaluate this information, which is now in the article. As the rules dictate, this kind of information should be deleted immediately. 2A00:1FA1:40BD:7714:FDF6:C55C:2EE9:7CF4 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel particularly ill-suited to approaching this article. as I know about ten words in Russian. Hopefully some more polyglot editors can weigh in. Dumuzid (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not polyglot either but i notice the following points: (1) WP:RS (in the west) reported the allegations but are not reporting any doubt about them e.g. New York Times here, the Guardian here and The Times (2) Pro-Putin Russian media are the only ones presenting criticism of the Navalny allegations (3) Our articles describes the allegations as described in (1) but also presents, unlike the WP:RS, the Russian media rebuttal, specifically the points made by “the Bell” that the IP cites. In fact, Kostin has “no commented” the allegations and has not, AFAIK, denied them. I therefore dont see a BLP problem. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources you cited quote Navalny's investigation. They write like this: Navalny reported, Navalny conducted an investigation, Navalny released an investigation, and so on. This is controversial information that has not been reflected in reality. All news sources, including Russian ones, simply quote Navalny's investigation. It turns out that Wikipedia also quotes Navalny, but already referring to well-known sources that also quoted Navalny. But what about the confirmation of this information ? It all looks like rumors and slander, which is unconfirmed by anything other than Navalny's words. 2A00:1FA1:4133:632E:AE:6D61:7DFC:4FB7 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * His reaction was: "I will see what actions to take in this regard. I will probably take some actions"; " Let it be his [Navalny's] work. I will not comment on this anymore". Also, at the request of Roskomnadzor and the court, many publications on this topic were deleted. The media write about this. The court recognized this information as discrediting the honor and dignity of the individual, as well as slander. 2A00:1FA1:4133:632E:AE:6D61:7DFC:4FB7 (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if this is the case, inclusion in a reliable source is enough for us to use it. We assume that such sources go with information only after some level of due diligence--that's what makes them reliable.  If you're unhappy with the way things are being covered in the sources, that's not a problem Wikipedia is equipped to solve.  I know that's not a satisfying answer, but I hope it helps you to understand.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I would characterise it differently to the IP. Navalny has conducted an investigation which he has reported. Sources that we usually regard as reliable have reported those allegations as credible. The only attack on those allegations are Russian sources that support the Russian oligarchy. We cover both the allegations and the pro-oligarchy rebuttal. meanwhile Kostin hasn’t denied the allegations. I think the article coves it extremely fairly therefore. DeCausa (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The court's decision to block 1000 publications where, in the opinion of the court, there was slander and information discrediting the honor and dignity of the individual - did you not refute this ? I believe that it is necessary to contact Jimmy Wales. This is a direct violation of the BLP rule. This is a controversial material that, as required by the rules, must be removed immediately, as it can cause harm to a living person. 2A00:1FA1:4133:632E:AE:6D61:7DFC:4FB7 (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to try Mr. Wales' user talk page, though I somehow doubt you will get the answer you want there. Keep presenting reliable sources.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Gerd Lüdemann
Gerd Lüdemann died on 23 May 2021. (https://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2021/05/23/sad-news-gerd-ludemann-has-died/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IyataYada (talk • contribs) 04:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC) (https://www.gedenkseiten.de/gerd-luedemann/) --IyataYada (talk) 08:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Duncan-Watt
Would someone have a look at Thomas Duncan-Watt, where there is a "Controversy" section that takes up half of the main body of prose, and do what they think is necessary please? I am concerned that the weight given to that section is disproportionate to its overall significance to the person's life and career. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Definitely a due weight problem. I took a crack at making it more proportionate. –– FormalDude  talk  08:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for doing that, . --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Jenny Durkan
I’d like to notify members of BLPN that there are several important issues in the article about the current mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkan. I’ve posted these are Request Edits here: Talk:Jenny Durkan. I have a conflict of interest since I have a personal and previous professional connection to Durkan. Thanks. 1920sportsfan (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Motorcycle Action Group
Would someone please have a look at Motorcycle Action Group, where a "Controversies" section about living people was added, based on an unreliable source (a website created by one of the involved parties). M.Bitton (talk) 13:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the Controversies section, warned the editor, and left a message on Talk page. Woodroar (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Sven Liebich
Could this be summarily deleted? The article is entirely negative in tone and claims a lot more than is supported by sources, which may or may not be reliable. Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Warren Beatty
This BLP includes a "Personal life" section that seems to claim that he has had sex with over 130 notable women. I looked at the claim about one of them, Hillary Clinton and found the sourcing very poor, so I removed it. I have no objection to discussing well-referenced long term relationships, but Wikipedia should not host speculation about every rumored sexual encounter that a "handsome celebrity" may have engaged in, over the course of the last six decades. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:29, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked several more and the references given didn't support the entry in any way at all. For the moment I have just nuked the whole list as unencyclopedic. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Danny Watts
This article is about Danny Watts a notable retired motorsport athlete who has a class victory at le mans among other accomplishments. He is also known for being one of the first high profile racecar drivers to come out as homosexual.

I am new to this site and I'm not really sure what to do about this situation and I don't want to get blocked or into an editing war with my first edit. Various Mobile IPs seem to be changing, reverting, and deleting sections without providing references or making a summary of their change. They also seem to be continually deleting references in the article. I put up a discussion post about the personal life section because I was hoping that I missed something or just didn't provide high enough quality sources but they have not engaged with it and have continued to change the page.

The crux of the issue is that this is a BLP about an LGBT athlete who had a rather high profile coming out. The change that sparked my initial editing is that the mobile editors keep trying to add the word "regrettably" to the sentence about him being gay and they also keep adding a sentence about him being in a heterosexual relationship with a bunch of superfluous details (like her being his soulmate and stuff.) Both of these changes have no verifiable sources that I can find after hours of digging through the internet.

What would you recommend be done in this situation? The changes aren't particularly heinous but they also do not seem neutral and, from what I can tell, are unverifiable. I am worried that his page is being manipulated due to the profile and identity of the person in question as well as the sensitive nature of that particular topic. I don't know why they would want to change that section continuously or outright remove it and the references I provided. They also are not engaging in discussion so I don't know what else I can do other than just continually revert the changes.

The last change was by the same mobile IP that re-added the unsourced changes I removed and they just completely removed the personal life section and added their changes into his career. I have reverted that but I will refrain from more because I do not want to be blocked.

Thanks a bunch! Pmcmichen (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello @Pmcmichen and welcome to Wikipedia! At the time I write this things seem to have calmed down, the current problem I see is a significant lack of inline WP:BLP-good sourcing, perhaps a bit of promo-language, and I'm wondering if mambaonline is a source we should use.
 * What I would do if similar edits start again (as in IP:s adding crap like "regrettably") is go to WP:RFPP and make a report asking for protection (WP:PROTECT), stating something like "Significant IP-disruption in BLP." Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * This now escalated to the IP saying they are the subject and making legal threats leading to a block Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Death of Gabby Petito
The article includes the names of all the eye-witnesses, however WP:BLPNAME seems pretty clear that extreme caution should be used when adding the names of third parties who are not public figures to articles. The witnesses themselvse are not relevant to the case, only what they saw. I've mentioned this issue on the talk page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:Death_of_Gabby_Petito
 * Your reading of BLPNAME is correct, and it's highly likely that most/all of those names should be removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed all the witness names. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanx all! -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 02:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The witness names have been subsequently added back to the article. Those adding it have not stated their reasoning to the talk page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Isabel Webster‎
succession of IPs that think a third party saying "happy birthday" on Twitter confirms a birth date. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misbah_El-Ahdab
Misbah_El-Ahdab or link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misbah_El-Ahdab This wiki page contains fake news and false information. The two sections of Drug involvement and Lebanese protests are fake news. The ministry of interior of Lebanon saw these two fake articles and denied them by declaring that these are fake news. Source: https://www.lebanese-forces.com/2012/07/30/229714/

Please can you remove these two sections. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolophesaad (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Donald C. Bolduc
Hello. Please note this page is being updated and any edits to it is Please refrain from removing the text or updated as was are trying to put in citations but cannot when you revert. If you have a then contact me directly but this information is coming directly from General Bolduc. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxslicer (talk • contribs)


 * We have evidence that this person is being paid to edit Don C Bolduc. Block him. Thank you, Pyramids09 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Aside from any paid editing concerns, I understand what you're saying and why you are saying it, but you're running up against a pretty hard and fast rule on Wikipedia, encapsulated in WP:BLP. Namely that everything that is likely to be challenged must be cited.  If someone comes across such a thing in an article about a person, and there's no citation, they would be doing the "right thing" to remove it.  I would humbly suggest that for any contentious claims, you add the cite at the same time you add the claim.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Look at his edit summaries, there is some evidence there. Thank you.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So, I am about the farthest thing from an admin, but having had a look, I understand the concern. I am not sure paid editing is necessarily the issue, but there is a clear and openly declared WP:COIN.  Bronxslicer, at this point I think it is incumbent upon you to declare exactly what your relationship is to the article's subject and/or any of his political campaigns.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , if the unsourced promotional edits continue, the conflict of interest noticeboard may be a better place to get the attention of interested admins. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Katherine Pooley
Raising issue of notability and possible the subject of the article WP:BLPEDIT editing it. The sources cited in the article do not meet the criteria to merit notability of this living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.55.114 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

William Patterson Dunlop
There is a discussion on the talk page. My position is that we should not be saying this person is dead without a reliable secondary source stating this information. I am also concerned that none of the biographical information can be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Most of the information there was posted by anonymous IPs who are ostensibly family and friends making the article shortly after the actor's death. What reliable secondary source that can be found amount to a list of films and tv shows the actor has worked in.

User:4meter4 is of the opinion that we should not be saying he is alive either, which I agree with. In fact if we cannot find such sources we should not have an article at all. The user also says that we should apply WP:COMMONSENSE and accept what family and friends are posting here, and that we should accept the primary source findagrave.com as a reference. The findagrave entry was written by a volunteer to the website and includes text from an earlier version of our article.

The article is currently at AfD: Articles for deletion/William Patterson Dunlop

We are an am impasse and would like further community opinions on the matter. Thank you. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 02:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Correction, I may be wrong about findagrave using Wikipedia text. It may have been the other way around. I still don't believe it qualifies as a reliable secondary source as it was written by a volunteer to the site much in the same way the Wikipedia operates. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:DarkTurquoise">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 03:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Ron Gant
I was just hoping a third party could weigh in on this. I can't see any reason that it should be removed from his article. It's certainly notable in that it was widely reported in newspapers at the time and it was implied in many of those articles that it contributed to his eventually being let go by the Atlanta Braves. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the "spirit of" BLP argument and don't think something so vague and abstract should be a factor here. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I made the following edit to the BLP article for Ron Gant."In January 1994, Gant was sued in Victoria County, Texas and accused of conspiring to encourage, aid and assist a friend in having sex with two teenage girls."
 * 2) User:BilCat reverted my edit because, he argues, "adding notice of a suit like this with no follow-up on what happened to the suit violates WP:BLP."
 * 3) I undid his revert and pointed out that "There is nothing here that violates WP:BLP unless you can point me to a specific provision or a consensus buried in a talk page somewhere that I'm overlooking. I would certainly add further information about what became of that lawsuit if I were able to find it but that information is in no way required."
 * 4) He again reverted my edit and said that the edit "tarnishes his name needlessly" and violates "the spirit of WP:BLP."


 * Seems a grand jury declining to indict would be equally, if not more relevant. []
 * BLP leans heavily to protecting the subject of the article so a one-day story with little follow up doesn't come across as WP:DUE Slywriter (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Slywriter here: this is not a BLP violation, as it is well-sourced, but in the grand sweep of time, it feels undue, especially given the NYT article. Then again, I am often wrong.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I hadn't been able to find the NYT article in my own research. I think if I add that bit of information then it will resolve the edit war. I won't be accused of "tarnishing his name needlessly." --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, this would not be my preferred outcome--in essence you would be enlarging upon an undue section. I think it should be removed, but consensus may well go against me.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with . Accused and not indicted seems pretty WP:UNDUE, unless there was a huge amount of coverage to establish the importance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree that this seems undue, especially given that the sources are all from the same month period and there does not seem to be any coverage of this accusation since. I think it also may be a BLP violation based on the sourcing given that there was no indictment and the reporting is only on a lawsuit that was filed without reporting on its resolution. Starting a conversation on the article's talk page before BLPN probably would have been helpful, but at least for now I have removed the contentious content until some sort of consensus is reached per WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there was wide coverage at the time given both AP and UPI coverage, being syndicated to thousands of newspapers. A quick check on newspaper.com shows 485 articles covering this in 1994. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple articles reported that the lawsuit was dropped in April 1994 by the accuser due to stress. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, there was a lot of coverage, but of a flash-in-the-pan nature; the reliable sources seem to have pretty quickly concluded that there was no "there" there. As such, it still seems undue to me, but if consensus is against me, so be it!  Happy Saturday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Which just means 485 papers picked up a syndictated story. That's not wide, nor is it sustained coverage. That's just the newspaper model of 1994.  Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't understand that's how the majority of newspaper coverage works and still works. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand quite well that syndication means ONE story gets printed in multiple places. It also makes it ONE source, not 485. It also doesn't make the coverage sustained or widespread as it's a ONE day story. No newspaper appears to have done their own follow up nor did the AP feel the need to keep its syndicated customers informed on the topic. And let's keep it about the topic, thanks. Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple articles across dates published in multiple newspapers. When the lawsuit is filed, articles appeared Jan 29. When the grand jury reviewed and declined to indict, articles appeared February 9. When the lawsuit was dropped, articles appeared April 14. You can run that check on newspapers.com Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * So three stories with none of them appearing to justify that this is due or appropriate for a BLP. No biographer, no retrospect on his career has been shown to cover this matter. An accusation was made, it was not found to be criminal and was ultimately not litigated civilly. Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, please keep moving those goalposts. What biographies are out there of Ron Gant? What career retrospect would cover non-career stuff? WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied. As for DUE, this is no less due than his bar fight, fatal car accident, mortgage fraud sting operation from his personal life section in terms of the amount of coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Those are all verified incidents that happened, though I think the bar fight is gossip. This is single allegation that had no lasting impact on his career or how media covered him. No notoriety, no fame, no sustained coverage, not even a mention found upon his retirement. That's not moving the goalposts, it is exactly what is required of an encyclopedia covering a living person. Slywriter (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * What part of WP:DUE requires lasting impact, notoriety, fame, or sustained coverage? None of those other incidents would seem to meet that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize for invoking WP:DUE, though that is still the best description for me, but this claim certainly received coverage. Given the policy at WP:BLP of avoiding tabloid-style stories and exercising editorial judgment, I still think this should stay out.  None of us know what actually happened here, but we have in essence, is two sets of stories: "claim" and "claim went away."  If you can can form a consensus to override me, I won't complain, but I remain a no.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is part of the content policies related to NPOV and DUE, and it seems pretty common sense that as information becomes more contentious, the importance of the lasting impact and sustained coverage becomes more important. If only one source reported on some non-controversial activity a person did as a child, then that has a much lower bar to be DUE. However, for a serious criminal accusations, if the only sources that discuss it are news reports that appeared only briefly right when it was a news topic, then that seems to be exactly one of the types of situations where we should not simply be reporting unsubstantiated allegations that merely made the news. If this lawsuit has never been mentioned again in the many news stories about the article subject since, then I don't see how it is relevant to the article or DUE. The other examples given by Morbidthoughts are all based on actual verified incidents, and no one disputes that the fight, car accident, or sting operation occurred. I really don't see how they are comparable situations at all. The only one of those that even concerns an allegation related to Gant is whether he was responsible for the other person's injuries in the fight, but that case both went to trial and was also reported on 15 years after it happened, and so it is far more relevant and DUE than a lawsuit that was filed and withdrawn without any actual resolution on the merits and a grand jury that never led to an indictment. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP protection for this type of situation is explicit in WP:SUSPECT. I do not read any requirement in WP:DUE nor WP:NPOV nor WP:NOTNEWS that the underlying incident be verified. The lawsuit did happen just like his breaking his leg right afterward and being let go by his team. News articles about his leg break mentioned the lawsuit because they thought it was pertinent to do so. WP:WEIGHT is an issue of weighing the coverage while NPOV requires it be stated neutrally; not hiding WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:WEDONTNEEDIT behind pseudo-BLP inferences. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , breaking his leg appears to have been a significant part of his life and career that has been covered in many articles about him since it happened. That situation also did not involve any allegations against Gant, especially not allegations of serious criminal conduct, and so similar to the other examples you gave above, I am not sure how it is relevant to the situation under discussion. Can you find any reliable sources in the past 20 years discussing the sexual assault allegations against Gant? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the significance of the leg break. Read the original complaint on the context of the lawsuit with the leg break. Again you're inferring a time significance test that does not exist in any of the policies you cited under the guise of common sense. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

B. Wongar
In the current version of this BLP we have persistent and irrational tendency to disparage the subject based on attempts of some (T. Keneally, J. Hanrahan) to debunk Wongar's work as a literary hoax. There are numerous proofs, implicit or explicit, that this tendency has lost currency, no matter how many times was repeated. Questions of Wongar's authorial identity and legitimacy came from people who are not Australian Aborigines and are an insignificant minority in the world of literary criticism. WP:BLPBALANCE is clear: "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."

Request 1. Remove Cultural appropriation category and this sentence: The revelation that Wongar was a Serbian immigrant, as well as inconsistencies in his life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary hoax and cultural appropriation. from the lead paragraph. If wanting more support for this request please, read Ann McGrath: In Search of the Never-Never: Mickey Dewar: Champion of History Across Many Genres, ANU Press, Apr 9, 2019 page 214 and after. Needles to say, keeping this category and the quoted sentence in the lead, we have an attack page which is forbidden by BLP policy.

The current text is nonsensically tag bombed by and  tags. All text is fully covered by references, and I even added the new ones in order to strenghten the content. But each time I added the new references and warned about nonsense, my text changes get reverted without any justification on the talk page. Not a single was ever justified on the talk page.

Request 2. Prevent tag bombing.

One user claims: The article has multiple issues. One of them The biography needs to be cleaned up to indicate that the entire backstory is based on (some of) his own claims. Nothing like this. His own claims are entered only if already being accepted by biographers and literary critics.

Request 3. Remove the The article has multiple issues tag and ignore the request above given.--Bocin kolega (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)--
 * The strength of reliable sources publishing the viewpoint like the Guardian and peer-reviewed academic journals determine its WP:WEIGHT. The current text that have the citation needed tags are in danger of being removed and should be supported by reliable sources. Perhaps and  can explain the issues with the references you added since they reverted you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wongar article is one of the obsessions of a recurring sockpuppet / abusive editor, who also pushes Serbian nationalist topics, hypes up the achievements of certain mathematicians, has some interest in Catholic-church sexual abuse scandals that I'm not entirely sure of the details of, and repeatedly attacks certain Wikipedia editors who have disagreed with these edits. For this reason, any change to the Wongar article, especially one denying the Wongar hoax story and trying to remove the well-documented published reliable sources claiming it to be a hoax, is likely to come under great scrutiny. In any case, the cleanup banners are appropriate (the article has many "citation needed" tags), the claims here that those tags are unnecessary are false, the removal of the well-sourced hoax claims would be inappropriate and would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:INUNIVERSE, and in general the requested edits are both problematic and consistent with the past problematic sockpuppetry on this article. To be blunt, BLP is not about the whitewashing of well-sourced negative information about a living person merely because it is negative. The McGrath source mentioned above  does not do anything to contradict this information; it merely suggests that some literary critics view it as old news. The sentence about "hoax and literary appropriation" in the lead is reference-bombed with four published reliable sources, providing exactly this information and using the exact words "hoax" and "literary appropriation", in part because of the persistent sockpuppet-led attempts to remove this information. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A reader of the sources in the BIO will have noted that long ago Wongar was outed as a literary hoaxer and a misappropriator of the cultures of indigenous Australian peoples.  "Facts" about Wongar that have been regurgitated by credulous journalists after those "facts" have been fed to them by the hoaxer himself cannot be relied upon until they are verified by sources totally independent of Wongar. Much of the BIO is based on such unreliable sources. I am tempted to call for a topic ban, but realize that it would probably result, as it did before, with a barrage of WP:spa socks and redlinks. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC).


 * All I see here, in the last two comments, is a barrage of poorly veiled personal attacks. I never ever edited anything related to mathematics or to Catholic church. But let us pretend that such comments would be sanitized or even removed later.


 * Now let us dig deeper in "the well-documented published reliable sources claiming it to be a hoax" - as it was claimed by Mr Eppstein. I have this sentence The revelation that Wongar was a Serbian immigrant, as well as inconsistencies in his life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary hoax and cultural appropriation.[5][6][7][8] on my mind.


 * Reference [5] mentions B Wongar's name only inside two sentences and these two sentences are far from being well-documented sources of anything since these sentences are just a bad opinion (full of nonsensical phrases) about Wongar. One of them is: Fake authors, such as Darville/Demidenko, Koomatrie/Carmen and Wongar/Bozic, appear to demonstrate a cynical but also unconsciously keen perception of both the nature of literature as fakery and of the literary, in contemporary Australia, as ethical commodity.
 * References [6] and [7] are about T. Kenneally's personal opinion about B. Wongar reduced in [7] to "that while Wongar's work is celebrated in Europe and that he may one day be regarded as 'a highly significant Australian writer', 'his deception has soured his reception in the English-speaking world'." B. Wongar's books were translated into 13 languages (so not celebrated just in Europe, but worldwide) and the English speaking world awarded Wongar many times. Read Wongar's awards and honors to see why you are wrong mr Kenneally. In the John Mandelberg's documentary "A double life: the life & times of B. Wongar", Kenneally was more cautious: did not accuse B. Wongar of anything (or Mandelberg did no include it in the documentary, if any).
 * The most surprising thing is reference [8]:Notes on the postmodernity of fake(?) Aboriginal literature. This reference does not support the claim it was added to. Rather, it reject the idea about Wongar's literary hoax/cultural appropriation by saying: "The impossible struggles over authenticity of authors and artists like Mudrooroo and Sally Morgan are a perfect (if ironic) fit with the postmodern stress on inauthenticity, or a commodified and globalized capitalist culture in which everything is a copy, nothing is original (let alone Aboriginal)."
 * About the McGrath source - Mr Eppstein has strong opinion about Wongar based on not reading the source he referred to. Under the title "Poor Buggler All Of Us" and inside this source, we read: "Latterly the debunking of Wongar as a literary hoax has lost currency20, although perhaps not entirely21."
 * Mr Eppstein continued with his bad habit of having strong opinion about something he did not read. See, for example his Two not-yet-used recent sources where he claims The first one appears to be about the question of Wongar's identity, Not at all Mr Eppstein. Try, before making your opinion, to read fully the reference you mentioned there.
 * Xxanthippe wrote: "A reader of the sources in the BIO will have noted that long ago Wongar was outed as a literary hoaxer and a misappropriator of the cultures of indigenous Australian peoples." Hm. Xxanthippe, I advise you to read what the four Nobel laureates J.P. Sartre, H. Böll, S. Beckett, and P. Handke wrote about B. Wongar's works and try to understand why these four big men supported B. Wongar. Try to explain to yourself why B. Wongar, the "hoaxer" and "appropriator", held the Writer-in-residence post at the Aboriginal Research Centre at Monash University in the late 1980s. Then answer this question: Which of the sources supporting this biography are unreliable and why?
 * Bottom line: All my three requests are valid since the comments of Xxanthippe and Mr Eppstein are personal opinions at their best.--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know who you are, I do know we keep getting lots of nonsense BLPN threads about B. Wongar on BLPN from random "new" editors. I'll say something similar to what I said to another area where something similar kept happening. It's unlikely anything will come from these threads. I think many regulars here are just taking to ignoring them. If there really is something we can do to improve the article, what we need is an editor willing to stick it out and not a continually bunch of "new" editors. By this stage, given the disruption, if that is you, you need to establish a reputation outside controversial areas, and I don't mean just a few edits. If in a few years time when you have such a reputation you still see problems, and come back then talk about them much better aware of our policies and guidelines, then perhaps something might happen.  Alternatively we'll likely look at the concerns of any editor with a declared COI although it might still be the case there's nothing we can do.  I would note that Jean-Paul Sartre, Samuel Beckett and Heinrich Böll all passed away prior to 1990 and the late 1980s is also the late 1980s. While it seems there was already some controversy over Wongar by then, suffice to say it was a very different time especially for stuff like the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as but to an even greater extent anything related to cultural appropriation. E.g. it was before Mabo v Queensland (No 2) or Bringing Them Home. In other words, if your focus is on stuff so long ago, editors may wonder if the reason is because you know reception of Wongar has significantly changed since the 1980s.  Peter Handke is still alive, but not without extreme controversy themselves. While this is mostly about a different thing from what lead to Wongar to be controversial, at least on Wikipedia there seems to be some correlation between support for extreme Serb nationalism and Wongar. (Alternatively it's just one editor.) In other words, Handke doesn't lead much credence to the suggest Wongar's work isn't extremely controversial either. BTW, as a further sign of how long ago the 1980s is, the stuff which ultimately resulted in Handke being controversial largely happened after 1980s.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @Nil Einne As earlier, I'll ignore all that nonsensical rant you dropped here. Still, your "knowledge" about the four Nobel laureates support deserves some response since you are of the same "regulars" as the three responders above: people reading nothing, knowing nothing but with strong opinion about "rights" and "wrongs".


 * J.P. Sartre, Wongar's friend, helped Wongar to publish the French translation of Track to Bralgu (1977) and Babaru (1982) in Les Temps Modernes, Paris. S. de Beauvoir, Sartre's life partner, wrote the foreword for Walg for English and Serbian editions of this novel.


 * In 1981 Wongar sent the manuscript of his Walg to H. Böll. Böll's wife Annemarie translated the Walg into German and Heinrich wrote foreword for the German edition of this novel in 1983 (Lamuv Verlag, Germany).


 * Per S. Beckett recommendation, Babaru was published by University of Illinois Press, in 1982. The same book was rejected on political grounds by every Australian publisher; Babaru won the American Library Association Award after being originally published. S. Beckett's recommendations finally broke "political unacceptability" hurdle in Australia and Macmillan Australia published "nuclear trilogy" (Walg, Karan, Gabo Djara).


 * Now you are trying to disqualify P. Handke's literature ("Handke doesn't lead much credence to the suggest Wongar's work isn't extremely controversial"), don't you? By putting Handke's literary greatness in a dirty envelope of politics?! In his foreword to the German edition of Babaru (Edition Esele, Germany, 1987) Handke completely ignored Wongar's "literary hoax" and "cultural appropriation" as it was "explained" by T. Kenneally and likes (just two of them). By no means Kenneally is a voice/representative of Aboriginal culture. Australian Aborigines accepted Wongar as a true representative of their culture: Wongar was a writer-in-residence at the Aboriginal Research Centre at Monash University in the late 1980s.
 * Not only these four Nobel laureates ignored any idea of "literary hoax" and "cultural appropriation". We have at least three dozens essays and appraisals/reviews of Wongar's literature ignoring or explicitly rejecting (M. Dolan, S. Gunew, T. Beebee, L. Dobrez, among many) T. Kenneally's disqualifications of Wongar. In his Australia and worlwide, Wongar won the most prestigious literary awards.


 * Are you going further advertise Kenneally's nonsense about Wongar? BLP policy is clear: "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."


 * Message to case handling admin. Please, dignify this discussion by forbidding uncivilty and personal attacks. Force people to demonstrate knowledge, not personal views and distortion of the facts.--Bocin kolega (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As an outsider to this whole topic, but one who's been patrolling the BLP page for a long time, I thought for a moment that I would take a look at this with fresh eyes. I mean, what other reason could possibly exist for you to bring it here, right? Unfortunately, I read only a single paragraph of your most recent comment and was immediately turned off. "Nope. Don't want to get involved with this person." I will leave this advice, though. You won't get any support by being insulting, condescending, and dismissive. I hope that helps, and I wish you luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Bocin kolega. Do you have any connection with Wongar that should be declared under WP:COI policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC).
 * @Xxanthippe Please, avoid further personal attacks! --Bocin kolega (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see that this a personal attack. I am happy to declare for myself that I have no connection with Wongar. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC).
 * It's not. I think people sometimes get confused, or occasionally may have disorders that cause them to take any form of criticism --real or perceived-- very personally, but in most cases I find it's simply a passive-aggressive deflection tactic. A real personal attack would be more along the lines of, "Jo Schmo is an ugly, disgusting pig who beats his dog." It's literally attacking the person, and is also a form of deflection. Either way, aggressive-aggressive or passive-aggressive, it's a way to distract from the point. ("Look, over there!") Asking pertinent questions, pointing out flaws in logic, giving opinions, or even giving advice and constructive criticism, these things are not personal attacks, and in fact are quite necessary in the course of any productive discussion. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, then you need to declare it or stop trying to make any changes to that article. Repeatedly attempting to attack others and misrepresent their comments is not appropriate either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking nor misinterpreting anyone. The others do it. No conflict of interest on my side at all. --Bocin kolega (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @User: Bocin kolega I find your answer to be equivocal. Do you have any connection with B. Wongar Yes or No? If you do, other editors, not you, will judge if it gives rise to a WP:COI. Your attitude in this edit inspires little confidence in your willingness to adhere to the norms of collaborative Wikipedia editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC).
 * I note that you started editing in April 2019, right in the middle of the period when a vast battalion of sockpuppets, that edited in fields similar to those that you edit in was being closed down. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC).
 * There's no such thing as a "case handling admin" at BLP or pretty much anywhere. (There are clerks at arbcom.) As for the rest, you seem to be re-affirming my point. You're using 3 people who died prior to 1990, and therefore have not had a chance to re-assess their position. The fact you continue to focus on these 3 people supports the idea that you know Wongar's work has been extremely controversial and therefore are clutching at straws choosing people who never had the opportunity to re-assess their views in light of new evidence etc. Note this doesn't mean any of them would have come to a different conclusion now in 2021, simply that we can never know. And given that there are plenty of living Nobel literature laurates and I suspect also some who died less than 10 years, the only reason to focus on these 3 who died so long ago, would seem to be because you cannot find anyone else. Frankly, I personally find it distasteful you're try to taint the legacy of these 3 Nobel laureates in such a manner so won't engage further. (As for Handke, the simple fact is that his views on a number of related things don't represent the mainstream view. This in itself suggests caution, but when added with the apparent overlap between his controversial views and those that tend to support Wognar on Wikipedia, this compounds the concern his views on Wongar are far outside the mainstream.)  I'd note that in addition, you've criticised David Eppstein for providing a source on the talk page without properly reading it. Yet if we look at the discussion all that happened is David Eppstein listed two sources they came across which they felt could be used to improve the article. Whether due to time or lack of interest or whatever, they didn't do so themselves. They made clear in their comment they had only read the abstract. This is entirely reasonable and perfectly normal and often useful since not all editors are as good at finding sources especially about somewhat obscure figures. If they are wrong about what the source contains as you allege, it doesn't matter much. Any editor who uses the source be that David Eppstein or someone else will read the source and not just the abstract. A few years from now, maybe that could even be use  you .  Finally as with others, I'm happy to declare I have no COI. Frankly I'd never heard of Wongar before one of the many "new" accounts brought it to BLPN. Asking someone to declare whether they have a COI is not a personal attack, the fact you claim it is further supports the view you should be ignored IMO. (Continuing to insist someone has a COI without much evidence when they've declared they have no COI may be, but that wasn't what happened here.)  Since you don't have a COI as you've finally declared, I stand by my view that if you want someone to look into this, you need to establish that you are not one of the large number of socks we keep getting by sticking around constructively contributing elsewhere. Since we're sick of wasting time on socks who want changes that are never going to happen. (See Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive noting that while of the identified ones, I think only the master ever edited B. Wongar but plenty of IPs with similar editing patterns did.) One thing which maybe wasn't clear earlier, once you have sufficient experience you may not need a BLPN thread to improve the article, since you could use that experience to improve it without needing much help from others, unlike your failed recent attempts. (You will quickly learn for example that the views of people who died so long ago on something that remains a significant issue tend to count for very little and so will probably yourself be embarrassed by the examples you used.) Definitely I've come across old comments of mine which I now recognise reflect a lack of understanding of our policies or guidelines or whatever.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Maher (writer)
There are several problems with the article.The article has full of false/misguided information about books that he wrote and published. Which is damaging his impression and he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. Most of the citations were promotional articles and now only 2-3 of the links are live, all others are deleted. And there is no such notability.I would like to delete the article on behalf of the person. Is that possible? I have delclared COI. Simplewikipedian (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I nominated the article for AfD. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Melanie Rawn
The link to Melanie Rawn's official website is no longer correct. Clicking the official website link (http://www.melanierawn.com/) listed in the External Links section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Rawn now takes you to a gambling website. Clearly the author has allowed the domain name to lapse. Only viable solution: remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.162.43 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Feel free to remove it. Qt.petrovich (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. Should have been .org. Schazjmd   (talk)  17:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix, but honestly, it wasn't worth the effort. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 11:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Stel Pavlou
Raising issue of notability and possible the subject of the article WP:BLPEDIT editing it, which is getting close to an edit war re: templates for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP. This user(s) already has claimed that the templates equal harassment and vandalism, which come from IP addresses in subject's city. IMHO, the guy has so little written about him in detail to achieve notability.

He wrote a few books (nothing special there), wrote the screenplay for an unexceptional movie, and recently hosted a pseudoarchaeology show on Discovery Channel. There are just a few third-party sources covering these activities, but none provide comprehensive coverage for WP:BIO or get passed the threshold for WP:N. I added the a recent piece from The Daily Beast, which covered a but of the criticism of this pseudoarchaeology show got on Twitter and a "Twitter Storm" that erupted when subject and his wife insulted professional archaeologists. Even with this WP:1EVENT, this guy does not achieve notability. More experienced eyes are welcome. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I checked the IP address of user. That city has a high pop. and other famous peeps. User could be Dog the Bounty Hunter for all we know! He lives there too. Your edits do appear to verge on vandalism, as most of your edits are aimed at this dude, his work, his show, his hosting partner. Looks like you have a personal grudge. User:Sj you created this entry and now the subject has his own TV show on Discovery. That good enough for you? I recommend Qt.petrovich be banned for antisocial activity. Madvark talk


 * A ban for anti-social activity? That seems a bit much for someone inquiring about notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the post activity. Dude came here for one reason and is on a tear. Not cool. Madvark talk
 * If you're going to post under a username, please create an account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Have account. Got logged out.Madvark talk
 * And instead of typing out a signature you can use ~ at the end of your message to sign the post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There is now an AfD for this page: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Stel_Pavlou_(2nd_nomination). Since this also deals with WP:FRINGE issues, I would ping @Roxy the dog and @Alexbrn. @jps may also have a fair opinion. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Read WP:CANVASS. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 11:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I am sorry for possibly having inappropriately done this. I was informing editors who may be interested in the topic, which I thought was appropriate. Qt.petrovich (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, better to use noticeboards rather than pinging specific users about discussions where consensus is trying to be reached. However, I am not altogether enthusiastic about the WP:SPA active in this thread. It's making it difficult to actually do the job of evaluating sources. Back to the subject of this thread, you have identified some good sources here, so WP:GNG may have been reached. jps (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Parm Sandhu
This article is a biography of a living person. It makes a number of claims about that person. Those claims are referenced, but the claims are not supported by the references given. For example there is mention of an award, and the reference leads to https://www.awaawards.com/, but that web page does not mention the individual that the article is about.

There is also mention of a medal - which is supported by a news article that does not mention medals.

There is mention of an audience with the Queen - which again is supported by a news article that does not mention an audience with the Queen.

The information above was removed in line with the BLP policy - "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;" However that edit was classed as vandalism and has been restored, in voilation of BLP policy "Restoring deleted content". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.13.110 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cleaning up the article. As you said, it does not appear any of the content you removed was supported by the cited sources. I do not know why restored the material, but I have reverted their edit until adequate sourcing can be provided. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)