Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive333

Michael Shermer
Editors (with COI?) may be blocking references to controversy

I was researching this person having heard of his work for the first time today and, after reading the (very detailed and somewhat promotional) Wikipedia article, discovered elsewhere that he is the subject of fairly widely reported (especially given his relative obscurity) allegations about misogyny and worse, and that these controversies have spilled over into, for example, protests at some of his speaking engagements. There is no mention of this in the Wikipedia article, but on the talk page there are clear attempts by some editors to make mention of them, with lengthy and fairly aggressive rebuttals by others. The argument against including them in this article appears to be based on the claim that BLPs cannot mention Me Too allegations, and pejorative-heavy claims that the sources, which include a lengthy and apparently well documented Buzzfeed article, are not reliable. I was unable to find out what the BLP policy is regarding "Me Too" allegations, but the arguments on the talk page seem (a) specious—other BLPs on Wikipedia mention similar allegations— and (b) are so defensive and argumentative that the editors making them appear to have a COI or relationship with the subject. While Wikipedia articles cannot and should not try to adjudicate such claims, the total absence of them in the article seems like subject-serving omission, rather than good encylopedic practice, and did me a disservice when researching the subject. I would be grateful if someone who is expert in Wikipedia BLPs could take a look at this article and decide whether any edits are justified.

PS The article also seems to be bloated with far more detail than is merited by the subject's notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.182.114.79 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I think there is currently insufficient evidence of egregious COI (edit: there have been limited historical edits by ), but this article has some major issues. The article reads like a hagiography, or most charitably, a piece written by avid fans for avid fans ("college sweetheart...", "lifelong dog lover...", etc.). Excruciating detail on every media appearance is pure fluff, and if Shermer was almost anyone else than a primary figure in the Skepticism community would be trimmed as indiscriminate information. But this does not necessarily indicate conflict of interest editing (Pokémon fans really like writing about Pokémon, so non-Pokémon fans need to periodically rein in unchecked effusiveness). The single-most active contributor to the article in number of edits and amount of text added is User:Nightscream, who appears to be interested in Skepticism-related articles, but not exclusively so. I do see staunch opposition from several editors (including IP addresses) to include any mention of allegations, even though they have discussed prominently by several sources, e.g. Inside Higher Ed, Undark Magazine, the Santa Barbara Independent, and by Amanda Marcotte in Salon, and mentioned in passing by the likes of the Washington Post. For a biography that devotes nearly a full screen laptop screen of text to Shermer's bicycling activity, a mere sentence stating the reported allegations, and Shermer's denial, doesn't seem out of place.


 * Issues of COI aside, one major problem is that the majority of sources in the sections on early life, education, competitive cycling, and personal life are primary sources, coming from Shermer's own books, interviews, or CV. A good deal of the later article content is similarly self-sourced. While using self-published sources for the subject is allowed within reason per WP:SELFSOURCE, reasonable people can disagree as to relevance, appropriateness, and due weight given self-sourced content in the current article. When nearly all of the Personal life section consists solely of simply restating Shermer's views on guns, politics, etc., with no third-party sources to demonstrate context or relevance, then the article becomes less a encyclopedia article about Shermer, and more a platform showcasing the views of Shermer, as if his mere utterance alone is reason enough to include in an encyclopedia. This article would greatly benefit from shifting the balance towards unaffiliated third-party sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "...the claim that BLPs cannot mention Me Too allegations..." Obviously, there is no such policy, as such a policy would be ridiculous on its face. The main criteria for inclusion are coverage, reliability of sources, and weight.


 * Regarding the sexual harassment allegations, those appear to have been removed by someone editing from an IP account a year ago here. It was not I, nor do I edit from IP accounts.


 * As for a promotional tone, if you want to point out which passages are worded or are by their very inclusion promotional or COI, I would interested to read and discuss them. :-) Nightscream (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, I am not the original instigator of this discussion, although my previous edit to my edit might have appeared as such. I cannot speak for the IP, but share some concerns. Per WP:PRIMARY: Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Large passages are based on them. Per WP:BLPSELFPUB: Such material may be used as a source only if... the article is not based primarily on such sources.  This article is based largely on them. I see more of an issue with a chummy, intimate tone, than outright promotion, which likely comes from drawing heavily from Shermer's own POV. But subtle promotion exists in the "show-and-tellism" of verifiable yet questionably relevant accomplishments soured only to affiliated/primary sources (if they are indeed due, then secondary sources are needed to demonstrate this). A laundry list of accomplishments is just showcasing (i.e. promotion), and giving disproportionate prominence to events or views than warranted by their prominence in secondary sources risks violating WP:NPOV, and turning this more into a memoirs of Michael Shermer than a neutral encyclopedic article. What independent reliable sources have written about Shermer should be weighed more heavily than what Shermer writes about himself or other topics. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that independent sources are preferable: they allow to determine what has catched public attention (an argument for if it's due) and may put things in context. I just checked the article and my impression is that the personal life section is not controversial but is somewhat verbose.  An important question to ask when primary sources are used (WP:ABOUTSELF), is it self-serving?  About the allegations, the WaPo source is probably acceptable for a mention.  As for the original poster's claim about current COI editing, I think it's mistaken.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 07:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Besides WP:DUE, we also have to consider WP:BLPCRIME. Anyway about the COI thing I agree I see no evidence of a COI. I'd note that when the issue was first brought up in 2014, the sources mentions are very poor. There was Salon and BuzzFeed (not BuzzFeed News) but both are sources which lack any consensus for reliability (see WP:RSP) and so are unlikely to be suitable to make contentious claims about a living person. Daily Dot is reliable for internet culture but again is unlikely to be suitable to make contentious claims about a living person. The blogs are unlikely to be reliable sources mostly point blank. Quartz first mention on the talk page in 2018 was maybe the first source good enough that we could consider including content IMO. And with Washington Post the threshold for inclusion is probably met. That said, previous attempts for inclusion seem to have also been poorly handled with one suggestion on the talk page "appropriate to include in this article a section on this wider conversation about sexism in the skeptical movement". And this inclusion which cited the Washington Post but using a weird quote [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Shermer&oldid=977881923#Allegations_of_sexual_harassment]. So I'm not particularly surprised attempts at inclusion have failed until now. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

James Deen RfC
There is a RfC about the level of detail of the 2015 allegations against James Deen that is appropriate for his article given BLP considerations. The history of this dispute can be seen at. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of anyone who may be confused like me, note this is James Deen a pornographic actor and director, not James Dean who is indeed long dead. Nil Einne (talk) 13:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

David Wayne Hull
Was I being too overzealous here with my application/enforcement of BLP? A week ago, I reverted some category additions from the previous few days which had made assertions unverified in the body of the article. At the time, I believed the additions to be BLP violations, but now I'm not so sure — the subject is an avowed member of the KKK, and therefore the added categories could conceivably apply to the subject; a couple of them could've been suggested by a quote from the subject in the article. However, I felt uncomfortable with most of the new categories remaining in the article because they were not directly referenced to any sources. Admittedly, I neither checked the sources already present, nor looked for any new sources myself. At the time, I felt that — and please correct me if I'm wrong — my not doing so did not matter because none of the sources had been used to reference the specific claims in question, one major example being the alleged ANP membership; the article made no mention of the ANP. Also, maybe I'm being arrogant, but frankly there are many things I would rather do, on Wikipedia and in general, than work on an article about a white supremacist. I meant to write this post several days ago but have been very busy IRL. Thank you for any constructive feedback, Dylan620 (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Jason S. Miyares
Jason Miyares

I am the communications director for Jason Miyares, Attorney General -elect of Virignia. I have his official headshot, which is used on our social media, and would like it to be his Wikipedia picture, but users keep changing it. Can I please give you this headshot, which matches his twitter and facebook, and then have it locked?


 * Hello Vlacivita. There are a few things you need to do to make this happen. Since you work for an attorney, you should be familiar with many of the terms I'm about to use. The first thing is to get the owner of the picture to release the copyright so it can be published under our copyright policy. We can't just go to facebook and pull his pic without the owner's consent. See WP:COPYRIGHT for more on our policy. ( An official government photo would be good, as anything government like that is already in public domain, but social media pics need a copyright release.)


 * Next, you need to go Wikimedia Commons and upload the photo --only after copyright problems have been resolved. At that point, since you have a conflict of interest, you need to show good faith by not editing the article yourself. (See: WP:COI) Instead, go to the talk page of the article (you'll find a link at the top), and post the picture there with a nice request that people change it for you. Give some reasons why it should be changed (better pic, old one too blurry, not up to date, etc...). Don't just say your boss wants it, because that is not a valid reason under our policy. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * A quick note here. Official federal government photos are in the public domain, but that is not automatically the case with works of state governments. A quick search indicates that Virginia official works should be in a free license (public domain or Creative Commons), but this is not guaranteed to be the case. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Good to know. I'm nowhere near an attorney, so I just take my own pics and avoid any hassle. Zaereth (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Aseem Malhotra
Greetings. I have some serious concerns about the article at hand. Dr. Malhotra's page has recently been expanded significantly by a, who has returned to Wikipedia after about a ten years' hiatus, and now evidently has a chip on their shoulder wrt. to Dr. Malhotra. I don't maintain privately a strong position on Dr. Malhotra, but I do believe that our biography ought to be neutral and dispassionate. It now almost reads as a RationalWiki entry, replete with invective and ridicule. Take for instance the detailed descriptions of his parents, and how their dietary considerations may or may not have impacted their longevity: As you can see, this paragraph is barely grammatical, and indicative of the entire article's many problems. I suggest that the entire article be rewritten, observing English grammatical norms and our BLP policy. Note that the page has been increased from roughly 16k bytes to 40k in a couple months. I seriously doubt that Viv Hamilton is the correct custodian for this particular biography. Thank you. Nutez (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Róbert Wessman
While I was working on the IRC helpdesk a user reported this, claiming it was defamatory: The article implies that the CEO of an pharmaceutical company may have been guilty of criminal acts. According to the sources he may have been cleared of these crimes. I have not had time to fully review this article. I advised the user to make an edit request, but in the meantime it may help if expert eyes can review the current state of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 15:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article subject looks like they are a public figure, and the allegations appear to have received a significant amount of coverage. Looking through the sources (using Google translate for the non-English sources), the current article text seems to accurately reflect the information in them, including making clear that the allegations/accusations are only that. The language may be able to be improved and tightened up, but if someone has an issue, then they would probably need to be more specific as to the particular concerns. I removed the "controversy" section and merged the material into the career section, as per the guidance at WP:CSECTION. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Anuna de Wever
Can some people please have look at the edit war + edit summaries at Anuna De Wever, and to a lesser degree at Christine Lagarde. In both cases, it is about sourced but WP:UNDUE negative issues (for De Wever a stupid tweet for which she received some backlash, for Lagarde a conviction for negligence for which she didn't even receive a penalty) and how and where in the article to report them. Fram (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for 24 hours from Anuna De Wever for obvious edit warring; hopefully that'll give them the cue to use the talk page. Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  10:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As suggested, I've started a talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anuna_De_Wever JustinPurple (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The content in the De Wever article looks entirely undue, especially given its low quality sourcing. In the Lagarde article, I am assuming the issue is about the content being in the lead. I would agree that it does not seem due, and certainly not enough to be in the lead twice (as it was before the recent edit). The current heading for the section in the article also seems excessive and undue. The content should be incorporated into her career sections rather than being a separate "controversy" section as per WP:CSECTION. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Joseph_Kallarangatt (2nd request)
Defamatory statements are included: "Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of a sexual assault allegation in the Church laid against another bishop..." (para 2; footnotes 3 and 4). No such allegation is against the bishop in the court where the trial of the case is going on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomytomthomas (talk • contribs) 09:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the citations don’t support that. I’ve taken that out of the lead. However. There seems to be quite a lot of lurid allegations similarly weakly sourced in the body of the article that someone needs to comb through. DeCausa (talk) 13:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Kallarangatt
Defamatory statements are made against Bishop Joseph Kallarangatt. Vandalism is felt: "During the police investigation, he was brought in for questioning and stated that the nun had only made a verbal complaint with him and not a written one" (footnote 19). The bishop, who belongs to Palai diocese of the Syro Malabar Church, is not the proper authority of the nun who works in the Latin Diocese of Jalandar, Punjab. Again the bishop has stated that the nun hasn't referred anything to rape or sexual harassment she faced from bishop Franco mulackal. The trial of the case is going on. And the name of Bishop Kallarangatt is not at all in the charge sheet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunmathewleo (talk • contribs) 17:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

He is not charged with covering up. The source article from the Hindu does not make any mention of such an allegation. As part of the investigation, he was asked to testify as a witness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.89.74.184 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Karabi Deka Hazarika
Can someone explain the BLP policy on "contentious" unsourced material to me? I haven't found any definition of what "contentious" means in a WP context. Disagreements between editors? Between public figures? Something else?

This question is prompted by the article linked in this section header, which has no inline citations whatsoever (all footnotes are to the list items from "awards" and below). My understanding was that the general policy is "when in doubt, remove it", but pretty extensive copy edits have been done on this and no citations added or talk page remarks to that effect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilvering (talk • contribs) 00:37, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of the word contentious having a special meaning on Wikipedia. It's something that could be controversial or cause a disagreement. I would suggest that using the talk page would be the most appropriate place for your to take your concerns, as it is doubtful that the few editors who have worked on that article are watching this noticeboard. You could ping them in your talk page discussion if you want to make it more likely they are aware of it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've added need for sources to the template at the top of the article. From a quick search, it seems that the claims to notability - as a writer and regarding her academic career - are genuine enough, but I'd certainly expect a lot more in the way of verification. As the existing template noted, the tone isn't really what we'd expect either. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "When in doubt, remove it" has some value, but mostly if you actually made an effort to look for sources. WP:PRESERVE is a thing too. That said, that BLP is in awful shape. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich
There is a dispute about the neutrality of the biography about Sarah-Lee Heinrich that led to full-protection of the page and a discussion at ANI (permanent link). You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sarah-Lee Heinrich. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
More eyes would be appreciated at Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, where a few IPs have been pushing some negatively-slanted original synthesis about what how the subject's h-index compares to others in physics based on the distributions reported in an unrelated arXiv paper for a few months now. (The sources cited in past edits include a link to a video by YouTube commentator Gad Saad where he expresses dislike of CPW, so I presume that's what's driving people.) There seem to me to be obvious BLP concerns w/ using poorly-sourced cite stats without any actual coverage in secondary RS anyway; we certainly don't do this for comparable bios like Katie Mack (astrophysicist) or Neil deGrasse Tyson and it can be confusing to interpret for different subfields of physics/differing career lengths, between databases etc. so it's not clear it adds anything but confusion. —0xf8e8 💿 (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Corey Benjamin
Corey Benjamin, a retired basketball player, has been in the news lately since a video of his daughter became viral. Multiple ip addresses have inserted the incident and his alleged history of domestic violence into his biography afterwards. I have removed the incident with his daughter under WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPCRIME and also the domestic violence allegations due to poor sourcing. Even though the page is now semi-protected, please keep an eye on the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Tesfaye
I do not see the "move" button as an anonymous user. Please help to edit this page [Tesfaye|here]. The page title should be Danial Fesshaye - NOT Daniel Tesfaye. The URL should also reflect the new name. This page is semi-protected but I have a picture of the official IOC Card with the correct name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyimam (talk • contribs) 04:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * unfortunately a picture of an official IOC card is unlikely to be suitable WP:reliable source for a different name and all 3 sources in the article are Tesfaye. And I had a quick look and didn't find any sources with Fesshaye either. If you have some connection to the IOC then please ask them to correct their database, or better yet, put out a press release apologising for their mistake. If you have some connection to the olympian, then you could considering asking them to request the sources correct their name. BTW your link doesn't work because you made it an external link but included a space. Try Daniel Tesfaye instead. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Kallarangatt (3rd request)
Defamatory statement and Vandalism are evident in the second paragraph of the article: "Kallarangatt has been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government"

1. The footnotes 3,4 and 5 speaks of another bishop 2. Footnote 3 is a tabloid article from The News Minute refers to sexual allegation against another bishop (Bishop Franco) and also claims that Church tries to hide illegal wealth through political coalition. Both these observations are used indiscriminately against Joseph Kallarangatt. 3. Footnote 4 from The Telegraph Online is all about declining population of Christians in Kerala and its electoral impact 4. Footnote 5 has nothing to say about sexual assault and corruption. 5. In short, the tabloid, one sided articles are used to create a gossip trio: "sexual assault-corruption allegation-Hindutva movement" in the very opening of the article. 6. In fact, the themes love jihad and narco jihad are added in the article at the right place as the article proceeds — Preceding unsigned comment added by Straightwrite (talk • contribs) 13:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Sinhalese military personnel
Dear administrators and editors, I have found the following articles under the category of Sinhalese military personnel which are a content considerable amount of unsourced content or poorly sourced content. Pls, help to improve these articles or remove the unsourced information of biographies of living persons. Also, I feel that some of the articles are on low-profile individuals. I highly appreciate your guidance and suggestion as a new member. 2407:C00:D002:D468:24F1:5711:35B9:751F (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ananda Weerasekara
 * Monath Perera
 * Chandana Welikala
 * Udaya Nanayakkara
 * Janaka Walgama
 * Basil Gunasekara
 * Manil Mendis
 * Sarath Dissanayake
 * D. W. A. S. Dissanayake
 * Nicholas Jayasekera
 * Devinda Kalupahana
 * Rohan Jayasinghe
 * B. K. V. J. E. Rodrigo
 * Paddy Mendis
 * Nandana Udawatta
 * Dennis Hapugalle
 * Mendaka Samarasinghe
 * Buddhi Siriwardene
 * Duleep Wickramanayake
 * Nihal Hapuarachchi
 * Susith Weerasekara
 * Vijitha Ravipriya
 * Ubaya Madawela

Joseph Kallarangatt (4th request)
Remove the reference that Joseph Kallarangatt is involved in the covering up of sexual allegation. The links to the charge sheet against bishop Franco is here: https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2020/08/13/charge-sheet-nun-rape-case-bishop-franco-mulakkal.html and https://theprint.in/india/police-file-chargesheet-against-bishop-franco-mulakkal-in-kerala-nun-rape-case/219243/ Remove all the erroneous claims in the article that connects joseph Kallarangatt with Bishop Franco mulakkal caseEzhuth (talk) 09:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Ezhuth (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This article needs more eyes on it. User:Suneye1 seems determined to include poorly sourced or not sourced allegations apparently on the basis of WP:NOTCENSORED. DeCausa (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @DeCausa The older version of the lead was a summarization of the article body without sources per WP:LEAD.. I'm not determined to "include poorly sourced or not sourced allegations." -   SUN EYE 1  16:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no source in the article that supports the statementent that you restored: “Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of sexual assault allegations in the Church”. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Should've simply explained it in the talk page rather than accusing me of "determined to include poorly sourced or not sourced allegations" and throwing a misleading warning in my talk page for a single revert. -  SUN EYE 1  18:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You’ve been edit warring on that article for some time both my edit summary of 11 November and Ezhuth’s post to the talk page explained it. In any case the onus is on you not to insert BLP violations into the article, which you have been doing. DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Eva K. Lee
This article appears to be largely edited by one user who has edited only this page. It appears to be a self-promotion, especially the "personal" section that contains a lengthy "defense" against criminal charges.

Some examples:

"By all measures, the I/UCRC center led by Lee was a tremendous success in terms of its technical progress, educational value, and societal impact. with numerous projects garnered practice excellence awards."

"The NSF Office of Inspector General disagreed with the counting of membership. They considered only cash flow into Georgia Tech as membership fee."

"On September 18, 2019 the National Science Foundation General Council issued a final Notice of Administrative Action regarding the NSF Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation, Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney's office refused to drop charges."

"During sentencing, hospital and academic leaders described Lee as a truly gifted and selfless individual with extraordinary talents, exceptional heart, and full of love for others, who works tirelessly for the community and for the world; an individual who is committed to serving the minorities and the disadvantaged."

"The case is unusual in multiple aspects: The non-compliance of NSF Office of Inspector General investigators; the refusal of U.S. Attorney to dismiss the charges; the repeated denial of Georgia Tech administrators to requests from top U.S. health officials to restore Lee's access to her computers while COVID-19 rages across the country."

The rest of the article also reads like a self-promotion and/or CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3ec0:1650:d05e:65c:f8c9:66b3 (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Phillips
Hi, I note the vandalism and BLP violation within the last hour here on the Leslie Phillips page. The IP address 96.18.6.194 is not here to build an encyclopedia. Every single edit of theirs going as far back as 12 months ago is petty vandalism, so no use trying to reason with said IP. Can an administrator please block? Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've watchlisted the page however, your request is better suited on WP:AN3. Meatsgains (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Parakrama Pannipitiya
This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content.


 * I've tagged the page accordingly. Meatsgains (talk) 01:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Brent Coon
The VRT team have been asked to bring this article for community discussion to see if the article complies with BLP and other community policies. The concerns / claims raised in the request include the following: If there's a more appropriate venue for this discussion, please feel free to move the thread accordingly. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Controversies section is overreliant on sources that are biased and anti-plaintiff attorneys.
 * The article is written to present the subject in the worst possible light, with all positive content that could make the article more balanced being removed.
 * Some of the material in the Controversies section is only presenting one side by using references that speak to when a case is filed against Coon and not the resolution.


 * Good grief. The article should be renamed Brent Coon and Associates, because it is nowhere near a biography about the person. It starts off reading like an ad, and then is just a list of lawsuits they've been involved in. Now, these lawsuits are pretty notable themselves, but the tone in the article is definitely one of condemnation.


 * I'll give an example. I read through the article and many of the sources, so I'll pick one section at random. The section titled "Asbestos racketeering and claim fraud". First, the title itself makes it seem like a fraud was actually committed, and is a potential BLP vio. Now the section is not about a lawsuit filed against his firm, but against a doctor he and many other lawyers used in asbestos-related cases.


 * The first sentence begins, "Coon admits to having Dr. Jay T. Segarra, a controversial radiologist from Ocean Springs, Mississippi, screen potential clients for asbestos-related injury...." And then after admitting this is all speculation by Forbes, goes on to say, "Coon went so far as to publicly defend Segarra...." and, "Similar fraud has been described in detail in the papers of Lester Brickman, a law professor at Cardozo and an expert on fraud and misconduct in asbestos litigation."


 * In case it's not readily apparent, that's more persuasive writing than expository. Beginning with "Coon admits..." is establishing guilt before a crime has ever been described. "Went so far as..." is another instance where we're insinuating a negative connotation. "Similar fraud" is establishing that a fraud has indeed occured --all before a trial has even been announced!


 * The source gives an entirely different tone. ""We assume there are other people involved in the enterprise," said Marcy Croft, the Jackson, Miss., lawyer for NSI.... Potential defendants include some of the most prominent names in the plaintiffs' bar, such as Baron & Budd; Motley Rice; Reaud, Morgan & Quinn and Brent Coon.... The process generated a suspiciously high percentage of diagnoses of asbestosis and related injuries, said Lester Brickman, a professor at Cardozo University School of Law who has written extensively about asbestos litigation.... Coon, a Beaumont, Texas lawyer who represents asbestos claimants, said he's hired Segarra and believes the doctor is honest. "I'll vouch for him," Coon said. "I've had him look at a lot of cases and the majority of them come back negative.""


 * So, it's easy to see how different the tone of the story is from their article to ours. Theirs isn't really even about Coon whereas ours makes him a centerpiece in this lawsuit; a lawsuit that has only been filed and not yet even accepted. And that's just one paragraph. I suspect there are even more problems, but due to things going on in my personal life I don't have time to go through and fix it all. I can say that there is indeed a lot that needs fixing. Zaereth (talk) 23:58, 4 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It is worth noting that the article was created by a political undisclosed paid editing operation (Frost joyce SPI). Presumably as an attack piece by a political enemy. MarioGom (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps this is a case where it would be best to WP:Blow it up and start over, being as that it is likely far more work to fix it than to begin again from scratch. I don't see much independent notability from most of these sources; he was just involved in these suits as either a defendant or a lawyer (or not at all), and mentions of him or his firm are simply marginal, as described above. Many of the suits are very notable in their own right, and subsequently have their own articles. I don't see much independent notability of his firm, and almost nothing in the way of biographical information on the person. The article somehow reads as a very negative resume for his firm, as oxymoronic as that sounds. BIUSO. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The Frost joyce sockfarm has a long history of editing against asbestos injury claims, and they created this article. The creator is not blocked because it was stale (inactive for a long time) by the time I reported it. The article was later edited with an attack POV by another UPE sockfarm, Classyklowngrasper who is also known for engaging in negative PR. Some COI editors (now blocked) tried to counter this, unsuccessfully. There are no significant contributions other than the UPE attackers and the COI editors. I think I have never done an AfD nomination purely based on WP:TNT, but I think this would be a good candidate. Nobody cared to fix the article over the years, and keeping it in its current form means that experienced UPE working for corporations in highly controversial areas get their way, in our face, promoting their clients and attacking their enemies. MarioGom (talk) 11:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have had a look. In order to get to the point where it was approaching a normal biography, I would be removing at least 90% of the content. And what was left would not be much to build on. I say TNT it and let someone who thinks there is a decent chance of an article start with no existing issues. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that the UPE editors used Southeast Texas Record (setexasrecord.com) by Locality Labs. This is a company operating +1,000 shady local news websites that publish paid stories for companies, election campaigns, etc. This is obviously an unreliable source. The sockfarm in question uses Locality Labs websites as sources extensively. MarioGom (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Nominated it for deletion: Articles for deletion/Brent Coon (2nd nomination). MarioGom (talk) 14:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And deleted two days ago.  Java Hurricane  12:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Harry Hill (activist)
This page about Harry Hill contains a mess of potentially libellous, weasel-worded material, Some of it is sourced, but not always at the appropriate place. Needs an independent editor's eye.Vizjim (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * WP:BLP violations from start to finish. Nuke it, and start again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but for various reasons I can't get involved in editing this article. Anyone out there willing to wield the shovel?Vizjim (talk) 07:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that nobody else seems to be interested, and that there is simply too much unsourced and improperly-sourced content to do anything else in any reasonable timescale, I have blanked the article entirely, and replaced it with a note explaining why. The article is a total disgrace, and the entire history should probably be removed from public access. Meanwhile, anyone who doesn't like the way I've dealt with this is free to gripe about it at WP:ANI, where they can explain what policy-compliant alternatives are available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've deleted it per G10 as it's completely unsalvageable short of gutting it completely and deleting pretty much every revision for five years. I've also just removed a BLP issue about Hill at another article, too. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Joseph Kallarangatt (5th request)


The contradictions in the BLP "Joseph Kallarangatt". The article in the second paragraph claims about sexual assault and corruption allegation based on footnotes 7,8 and 9. The corruption allegation is based on the article "The right turn by a section of Kerala’s Catholic church is sheer opportunism". A single statement is made by Indulekha Joseph that "There are many allegations the church faces currently, including corruption and sexual offences”. How does this single quote be included in the BLP of Joseph Kallarangatt against him? There is no mention that there is corruption allegation against Joseph Kallarangatt, Please refer the footnote no. 7 https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/right-turn-section-kerala-s-catholic-church-sheer-opportunism-155406

About sexual assault the contradiction is as follows: the term sexual assault is used in paragraph 2 of the article gives the impression that Joseph Kallarangatt has done the assault. Again the matter is referred under the title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church". Here it is claimed that Joseph Kallarangatt has approached by the nun based on footnote 13 https://caravanmagazine.in/gender-sexuality/bishop-franco-mulakkal-kerala-nun-rape-case-protests But the very footnote 14 which is from The Hindu, a leading newspaper in India, takes a different report. It claims that bishop said that the nun had made verbal reference about the complaint, not any written complaint. It never says that the bishop delayed anything or covered up anything. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/nun-complained-to-me-pala-bishop/article24422306.ece

The title "2018–2021: Controversies in the Church" itself is inappropriate in the write-up about Joseph Kallarangatt since he has nothing to do with the controversies itself that it should be in his BLP. The first paragraph under this title talks about Franco Mulakkal, a bishop of the Latin rite, India. The BLP of a person should contain events that require direct involvement of the person. There is purposeful attempt to defame the person. Sheer vandalism is detected. Whenever a positive information is added just by adding a name about his alma mater, it is deleted instantly. What about the right of good name of a person in Wikipedia when the concerned person may not be a privileged editor. Ezhuth (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Just for reference, it may be helpful to join an existing discussion rather than opening a new one every day or so. You're much more likely to get a reply that way, and it helps keep from cluttering up the page. I changed the titles so that when you click on your watchlist link it doesn't go immediately to the first section (a lot of people will miss it entirely if there's already another section with the same name).


 * I think many of your concerns are valid, albeit falling short of the real problems with this article. I'm not going to say the article is terrible or badly written. The problem is it's mostly written like a newspaper article (or, rather, a collection of newspaper articles), with maybe a bit of puffing of the descriptors (ie: like calling his welfare plan a "scheme" in every sentence, to name but one). The thing is, WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. We don't need all these little tidbits and every boring, blow-by-blow detail in the way a newspaper would write it. All we really need is the gist of it. The bare bones. The nitty gritty. The article is incredibly bloated with massive amounts of details we just don't need in order to explain what happened.


 * And, yes, I do see many other problems. For example, the first source you linked above is an opinion/editorial column, and while the other two are actual news reports, I suspect there may be many more questionable sources in there. I think it should be made clear that he is not the center of some of these controversies, although he's not that far removed, but we should keep in mind that the article is about the person, not the church. Unfortunately, I don't have time to do anything but offer my advice and constructive criticism. From what I can see the article needs some attention and a good overhaul to make it less newspapery and more encyclopedic. Zaereth (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

John Trevena (lawyer)
While researching conflict of interest concerns involving I discovered that they had created a biography of lawyer John Travena. COI concerns aside, it appears that the article may have been created only to attack Trevena's ex-wife in relation to a domestic violence incident. Right from the start, the "personal life" section contained claims that the ex-wife was a user of "methamphetamine and heroin and other illicit drugs". Trevena was arrested for domestic battery in March 2019. The articles was created in May 2019 and Light burst continued to edit the personal life section to add even more detail to accusations against the ex-wife (for example, these additions in December 2019). I have removed the section entirely since it did not provide any information outside of that dispute. Trevena's wife is not a high-profile individual and the allegations are just allegations, so I believe this is a violation of WP:BLP. I would appreciate it if other editors could review my actions. Thank you. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked
 * Editor is being pointy. This article survived the scrutiny of multiple editors and I want to point out that this editor's account so far is an SPA - their first edits were to accuse me on a COI report, then post on my talk page, then go to an article I started to erase large portions, and then come here to kick up more drama. Quite disruptive and obvious. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And now posting threats to my talk page. diff after going to several other articles I started. Disruptive editing. I am going back to real work. Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It is simply what happens when a user continues to ignore discussions of their actions. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Having "survived the scrutiny of multiple editors" does not mean that the article does not violate our BLP rules. I brought the matter here so that other editors experienced in BLP issues could take a look and discuss it. Isn't that the proper thing to do? Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked
 * Stop pinging me. I am not interested. You have now pinged me four times across the project and you are refactoring articles I started and threatening me, all in your first edits. Frantically demanding that I respond to you or else. Read WP:NOTTHERE. Lightburst (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would definitely say there are some serious BLP concerns there. Per WP:BLPCRIME, we don't report arrests or allegations unless conviction has been secured in a court of law. The case was dismissed according to the sources, thus no conviction, making the first paragraph a BLP vio. Then, per WP:BLPNAME we usually don't name the wives, husbands, children, friends, family members, etc., of notable people unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own article. In most cases it works just as well to use generic descriptors ("wife", "child", etc.), because a faceless name is meaningless filler to most readers, but to the subjects and their non-notable family it is a very big deal and we should respect a private person's right to retain their privacy. But even without the names, it reads like tabloid trash; like we're just airing his dirty laundry and tossing his wife under the bus to make him look bad by association. Maybe that wasn't the intent, but that's how it comes off to the reader. I would say nearly all of the personal life section should go. Beyond that, what we're left with is a similar situation to the Brent Coon issue raised at the top of this page, where we have a pseudo-biography that is more about his law practice than it is about the person. Zaereth (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

It appears to me that the intention was not to make Trevena "look bad by association" but to smear his wife and balance out the domestic violence charge. Please sign my guestbook (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC) indefinitely blocked
 * It doesn't matter what the intent was. The result is what matters, and the result is it reads like tabloid trash. Zaereth (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I've given the personal life section a once over. I removed the super obvious BLPVIO Trevena's wife, Meredith Lynn Recio and the boyfriend of the former Trevena employee broke into the Trevena law firm. They stole a check which they forged and cashed for $8,500 dollars. Trevena told police that they also stole a .44 caliber handgun. That stated as fact someone had committed a crime based on an allegation. I tried to clear out the names as well. The whole section should probably be removed per WP:DUE and WP:BLP, as there are no convictions, no resolutions to lawsuits and, as Zaereth has said, it's tabloid trash. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * At this point I've gone through and removed that entire section. A lawsuit from the neighbors was dropped and resolved. Requesting a protective order doesn't need coverage in an encyclopedia. Getting arrested and having charges dropped also doesn't need coverage in a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to add that the AFD for this article shows yet more problems with the Article Rescue Squaderon - the state of the article at nomination shows the BLP problems identified above, but 3 of the major members of ARS jumped to say "keep" even pointing out the domestic violence coverage as a reason to keep, which is not what we cover per BLPCRIME. So the argument "this survived an AFD" has no weight here - we judge BLP issues at the state the article is currently in, as that is a top-level priority for us. --M asem (t) 21:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Eight people participated in that AFD. The nominator was the only trying to delete it, the other seven people voted Keep, only three of them regular ARS, one of which created the article.   D r e a m Focus  22:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Rescue squadron? Is that a real thing? Or is that just a good name for people who hang out at AFD? I tend not to get too involved in deletion discussions. Those often turn out to be these huge drama boards where its all emotion and no real logic seems to apply. I do notice that there are a lot of people who hang out there with the rescue mentality, like we're saving a drowning puppy or something. In many cases, an article deserves to simply die --sometimes for no other reason than out of respect for basic human rights to privacy-- and I think this is one of the better examples of why. I wouldn't wish a Wikipedia article on my worst enemy. It would be less cruel to simply beat them to a pulp, but a Wikipedia article? That's too cruel a punishment for even the worst offender. I think people often forget that a Wikipedia article is not necessarily a good thing, words can cut deeper than any sword, and what we write here needs to be of such serious interest that there is an overriding need for the public to know. The people we write about are real human beings, and what we write has very significant, real-world consequences.


 * I can say this, even though I prefer to be a writer and therefore, by some Wikipedians' terms, an inculsionist, if I did watch deletion discussions I would have to take a very pragmatic view of the cases, and would likely vote delete more often than not. I think we have a lot of radically-unnecessary exceptions to notability guidelines for certain groups, and I think we need much higher standards and a more even playing field. There is no point in having an article that has no chance of ever being anything more than a stub. In this case, what we're left with in this article, minus the PL section, is basically an ad for his law firm, and I see no reason to offer free advertising. Zaereth (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Attorney advertisement is what this article always was. Same creator created the article about the lawyer's biggest case, Jennifer Mee. Levivich 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Not at all clear BLPCRIME applies as this is a nationally known "prominent" lawyer who is not magically immune from sources that cover controversies they have been involved in. I've started talk page discussions with additional sources. -- Green  C  23:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BLPCRIME clearly applies here. Even if we accept the subject of the article is a public figure, the problem is that section is not just about the subject of the article. It includes allegations about multiple other people one of who is named and would be readily identified even if not named. These people clearly fall under BLPCRIME. They aren't public figures, they aren't even notable. Yet since those details appear to relate to part of the dispute over the case for the subject, it's questionable to simply exclude those details completely either. Since ultimately this apparently resulted in no conviction, the solution may very well be to simply exclude it. Especially if the sourcing is so limited. Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

To no one's surprise, OP has been CU blocked. Levivich 23:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Besides the questionable coverage of Trevena's own legal disputes, there's also the question over the coverage of high profile cases. Two of these cases may be notable or related to notable people (we currently have articles on them or the cases so until these are deleted I have to accept that) so I'll let them pass although one of them currently uses NY Post which should be replaced per WP:NYPOST. Two of them are apparently not (if you disagree created the articles). For an allegedly high profile case, one of them currently only has a single source which is a local news section of some media [//www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/former-pasco-schools-employee-sentenced-to-life-in-prison-for-child-pornography], the other only has 2. The first had a Justice Department PR but I removed it since it seems inappropriate to use especially for a non notable case or person. While these two people were convicted, I'm unconvinced we should be discussing their cases let alone naming them in these circumstances. Nil Einne (talk) 07:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Ammu Swaminathan
This BLP is completely unsourced except for one reference that I added. The sections about marriage and career contain unsourced defamatory claims about the person as demonstrated in the diffs given here, here and here. -- Netha  (talk)  09:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Víctor M. Marroquín
This subject is not notable, by any means. It is a vanity, possibly commissioned, article. This article has been deleted once and nominated for deletion twice. Now certain individuals are undoing edits in both the article and the discussion page. It should be, once again, deleted and, in the meantime, protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaMillbard (talk • contribs) 20:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have started a third AfD for Víctor M. Marroquín. Edwardx (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Use of Twitter at Alex Saab
The following content has been added at Alex Saab:
 * Before the extradition final ruling took place, Saab's defence team sent letters of support, allegedly from a Catholic bishop near Boston; such dioceses did not exist in Massachusetts. The letters were authored by Rev. Ramos Teixeira, part of a small Massachusetts-based denomination named 'Catholic Church on the Americas', which is not connected to the actual Roman Catholic Church.

It is sourced to two twitter posts. I have removed the content twice ( and ) but it has been restored. There is a discussion on Alex Saab's talk page about the content at. Disregarding the issue of lack of consensus, there is the issue of using Twitter as a source for claims about third parties. The text makes statements about Saab's defence team and Rev. Ramos Teixeira. Our policy says, among other things, that Twitter "may be used as sources of information about themselves, ... so long as: it does not involve claims about third parties". Burrobert (talk) 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ping NoonIcarus Burrobert (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * As I explained in the article's talk page, the sourced tweet is from journalist Anatoly Kurmanaev, who has been The New York Times correspondent for Venezuela for a long time and has a verified account in the platform. These changes were also improved later by another editor, without there being any objection. --NoonIcarus (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I removed the content for now as it does not seem reliably sourced or due. Tweets do not have the same editorial oversight and factchecking as published articles from reliable sources, and they also do not provide the same weight when considering what content is WP:DUE. Further, even the tweet says "appears to be", while the text added to the Wikipedia article stated it as a definite fact. I'm not sure what value this adds, but if it is important, then there should probably be better sourcing from something other than Twitter. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:50, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SPS and WP:BLPSPS are clear that self-published sources like tweets, even from an expert, can't be used for claims about other living persons. We need to wait until these claims go through the editorial processes of well-regarded reliable sources like the NYT. Woodroar (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Surabhi Lakshmi
Whilst patrolling recent changes, I saw that User:Surabhilak has requested in an edit summary (Special:Diff/1056331089) we suppress details of her marital history (which were referenced to a RS). Normally for a performer trying to massage their information for publicity reasons I would revert, but am concerned that marriage and divorce can be a sensitive topic. Would welcome opinions from those more experienced in the area. ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * For convenience: . ⁓ Pelagic ( messages ) 21:40, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Ashleigh Barty
Whoever oversees this article repeatedly removes 'Indigenous' from the first line of text, claiming that her heritage is covered (later in the article) in: "She is ranked No. 1 in the world in singles by the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and is the second Australian WTA singles No. 1 after fellow Indigenous Australian player Evonne Goolagong Cawley." This line of text is easily misinterpreted in regard to her heritage, where the 'fellow' tennis player could be easily interpreted as simply relating to their careers, or even more easily skipped over entirely in reading. It is Wikipedia's role to provide clear biographical information, and it's incredibly important that Indigenous Australians with a platform are recognised for their heritage. There is absolutely no harm that could come with making Barty's heritage clearer, she is a proud Indigenous woman, and we should not be trying to bury that piece of information in a confusingly worded paragraph. I do not understand why the editor keeps erasing edits which clarify Barty's Indigenous heritage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.229.112 (talk) 01:14, 22 Nov 2021 (UTC)


 * The introductory sentence covers the nationality of the subject, not the heritage or ethnicity. In that regard, the Manual of Style is clear that the first sentence should refer to her as Australian. —C.Fred (talk) 01:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Though I wouldn't put it in the lede sentence, that she represents a group for Indigenous Australian players (due to her being Indigenous) would be reason to have, perhaps in the 2nd lede para, to state she is an Indigenous Australian. That still falls within the MOS aspects. --M asem (t) 02:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * In addition to the sentence the IP already mentioned, which is in the first paragraph, the fourth paragraph notes that she's a National Indigenous Tennis Ambassador. —C.Fred (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Waukesha Christmas Parade attack
As of now, police have a "person of interest" and there is no suspect. The name or any details about this person have not been released. The talk page has a section naming whom they believe to be the suspect. I believe even naming this person is a violation of BLP given how serious the incident is and that nothing has been confirmed by authorities. It's all internet speculation which might be wrong. Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Talk:2021_Waukesha_Christmas_Parade_attack
 * The person of interest's name has been widely reported by reliable sources, which are cited in the article. The article does not claim that he is a suspect. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article does say he was taken into custody which suggests that he is accused under WP:BLPCRIME. What happens when he gets named as the suspect? Should his name be removed then? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Kenosha unrest shooting
Rosenbaum is not a living person and does not fall under BLP. It should be allowed to add the well-sourced information about his previous convictions, which were also brought up in the trial about this case. Rosenbaum was a [redacted], which is relevant to that article because 1. it was relevant in the court and 2. he died while chasing a minor. Source: 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the opening section of WP:BLP, the policy applies to recently deceased as well as living. Springee (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Thank you. So do i understand this right and nobody is allowed to mention a conviction of any living or recently deceased person? Am i allowed to go through wikipedia articles and remove any mentions of any murder convictions of any person? 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, thats not what it means, but we simply dont include convictions of non-notable, non-public figures without good cause. In the situation around the unrest, there is nothing significant about Rosenbaum's background outside of being one of the protestors that night; the shooter didn't know of these and they didn't affect behavior that evening. That they were brought up in the trial doesn't mean they are significant at all. --M asem (t) 14:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is significant enough for it to be mentioned in the court and significant enough for it to be printed in multiple reliable sources. And since he was the aggressor who charged at a minor, i think it is relevant information. I see that you might disagree with legal courts here, but how is this properly dealt with in wikipedia? I am new, for me personally it seems like the court and reliable sources count more than the personal opinion of editors. 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To add on that: It surely affected the behavior of Rosenbaum himself. Which was the trigger of the whole incident. 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As a first draft of what should/shouldn't be included consider what the court allowed in. I don't think anything about prior crimes was let by the court.  However, I think he was described as homeless and bipolar in testimony.  If covered by reliable sources (see WP:RS) then such content may be acceptable.  Still, we have to be careful and if in doubt we should leave it out.  Springee (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What about writing an article about Rosenbaum? I think there are enough well sourced materials out there to write en extensive page about him. If i create a page about him, i can write that he is [redacted], right? Would i also be allowed to write that he is [redacted]? Or is this some personal medical information and not allowed?2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BIO1E would say absolutely not. His priors weren't covered by RSes until this case, and that most are based on court records would be against BLP. (The same is true for Rittenhouse - its why these articles are based on the notable event and not the people of the event) --M asem (t) 17:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He is notable for multiple events. Multiple [redacted] and the Kenosha shooting. Edit: So i just have to find an article in a local newspaper mentioning one of those cases where he [redacted]?2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 17:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Were the [redacted] cases the subject of detailed coverage? If not, they are not considered significant events for BIO1E. And no, one article in a local paper is not going to cut it as evidence. --M asem (t) 18:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes they were. Or do you think before the Kenosha shooting? If its about the time before, then i do not know, but i can look into it and i am sure i could find something. It's hard to believe that not even some local media would report about multiple [redacted] 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this stuff about "It surely affected the behavior of Rosenbaum himself. Which was the trigger of the whole incident." is WP:OR. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The court ruled that it is self-defense, which means that Rosenbaum was the aggressor. Which is also undisputed and agreed upon throughout reliable sources. He charged and tried to attack a minor who he previously threatened to murder. Again sourced and admitted by multiple reliable sources. Those things are already in the article. The court decided that his criminal background is relevant to the case. What counts more? The decision of the court that it is relevant, or your personal opinion that it is not? 17:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * While his background was brought up in court and wasn't struck, we have no idea if that influenced the jury's decision. It is OR to assume that is the case. We can point to any RS that have analyzed the trial and assert it was relevant, but we can't make that jump. --M asem (t) 17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this logic. So does this mean we have to remove everything that got mentioned in the court from the article, because we don't know which of it influenced the jury decision? 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We should be looking at RSes after the jury verdict to decide what is the way to discuss how the trial proceeded, as per WP:NOT and WP:RECENTISM as to judge what elements should be included. --M asem (t) 18:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since when are we just allowed to use information that we proved influenced a jury? That is a totally artificial standard that you are making up. If it is relevant in RS, so it is relevant for the article. 213.142.96.6 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * They aren't recently dead if they were shot over a year ago. If the court thought it relevant to mention their criminal records, and the media gives ample coverage of it, it should be listed.   D r e a m Focus  17:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * BDP can extend out to 2 years, depending, and in Rosenbaum being a central focus of the trial, I'm pretty sure BDP would continue to be justified. Further WP:BLPCRIME tells us to be very careful in regards to any criminal activities of non-notable people.  We absolutely should be very cautious about this. If multiple RSes agree that Rosenbaum's criminal background was that relevant to the trial's outcome, then yes we can include it, but right now, it was brought up but I don't see any ties of that to why the jury ruled as it did. --M asem  (t) 17:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * edit conflict, about to change what I wrote. WP:BDP reads: Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. Its bolded like that on the policy page.  D r e a m Focus  17:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And the very next two sentences say "The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend based on editorial consensus for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would only apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. " Which Rosenbuam qualifies, 100%. --M asem (t) 17:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * What implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime do you think might happen?  D r e a m Focus  17:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If Rosenbaum's past crimes were not the subject of coverage while he was alive (and more than just police records or the like), these new findings that he has severe criminal history can be traumatic to family and friends if they weren't aware of that already. It draws more attention to Rosenbaum, and by happenstance to family + friends, that appears unwarranted unless RSes clearly cannot discuss the trial results without pointing them out. BLP's is to avoid doing any harm, and just because someone has a criminal history doesn't mean it is warranted for inclusion in WP. --M asem (t) 17:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it draws attention to Rosenbaum. He caused a shooting after all. Am i not allowed to mention any crimes of anyone because it would make the family of the criminal feel bad? It went through the media back and forth, mentioned everywhere, because it is considered relevant to this case by almost all mainstream media sources that reported about it. For me it looks like some Wikipedia Editors have just a personal opinion that vastly differs from the court and the reliable sources. 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 18:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who looked up their name could find it easily. Also they probably knew it anyway.  If not someone should tell them what the guy did to ask their own children if anything happened to them.  Anyone who cared about them would look up information in the news about them and know this already.   D r e a m Focus  18:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if the information is easily found. Wikipedia has purposely higher standards for what we report than the media. We are not required to document everything particularly when (as noted below) it wasn't information allowed at the trial to start. If readers want to know more, they can do the additional research. --M asem (t) 16:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Are you really using "we don't have to include all information" as your argumentation now? And then you claim that wikipedia has higher standards than the media. Which is factually wrong, because wikipedia is just a mirror of media consensus (RS) 213.142.96.6 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, the shooting was more than a year ago. So it should be ok. All of those requirements are met, 2001:871:237:2B:74AA:AA9B:7865:E84E (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Everyone, please recall that WP:BLP (and WP:BDP) applies to talk pages and noticeboards as well as the articlespace. While it is reasonable to have a discussion about whether this content ought to be included, describing details of alleged crimes without any reliable sources is not. And please note that reliable is a key word here—WP:RSP and WP:RSN are good starting points if you are new to evaluating source reliability. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The reliable sources search at the top of every AFD, if you look at the guy's name you can find what Wikipedia says are reliable sources that mention his criminal record. The first result is: https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/09/11/rittenhouse-victims-records/ Search for the section titled: What’s True — and False — About the Victims’ Criminal Histories and that reliable source covers it. https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/tucker-kyle-rittenhouse-facts-are-different-than-what-we-were-told is the second search results.  Many more out there.  I think it gets enough coverage to mention it.  If the jury said it was self defense because they attacked him, mentioning any violent criminal convictions they had should be mentioned.  If the jury was told this information, it should be mentioned in the article about this.   D r e a m Focus  19:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that in discussions about BLP topics, you need to specifically include your sources when describing highly contentious material. The fact that reliable sources may exist is not sufficient, the onus is on people making the claims to include their sources alongside them. I am staying out of the content side of this discussion because I have been helping in an administrative capacity with the BLP issues, and so do not intend to give my opinions on whether the sourcing is sufficient to include these claims. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How is Rosenbaum's criminal history a BLP issue, hes been dead for over a year now. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:BDP. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * How is this material contentious or questionable? There are many reliable sources for it. DarrellWinkler (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Crimes against children pretty much always fit the bill of "contentious", and I was asking people to please begin including their reliable sources because until that point they had not been. Again, I am not opining on whether the statements are sufficiently sourced or relevant to be included in the article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:16, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that any crime against any child can not be mentioned in wikipedia? 2001:871:237:AD39:BC3:D71C:15B:641B (talk) 13:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Whatever was reliably sourced (e.g. in WaPO ) and important for the case should be included. When I read about this, I was really surprised why did these people act in the crazy way they did? The background information, as provided in WaPo article (this is excellent journalism BTW!) helps to understand these people and obviously should be included to provide the important info for a reader, exactly as the cited article does. Yes, that includes such info as "Joseph Rosenbaum — depressed, homeless and alone — didn’t belong to either side. He had spent most of his adult life in prison for sexual conduct with children when he was 18 and struggled with bipolar disorder. That day, Aug. 25, Rosenbaum was discharged from a Milwaukee hospital following his second suicide attempt in as many months and dumped on the streets of Kenosha." Is that important for a reader of the story? Yes, it is. Censoring such info in effect misinforms the reader.My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * An important point here is that people under discussion were not bystanders or merely victims of the crime. They were active participants of the event. If they behave differently, nothing would happen. Without considering this, one can not understand the decision by the jury. My very best wishes (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know what factors the jury used and it's inappropriate to suggest that the criminal histories were part of it. The facts of the case are unrelated to those past crimes and it would be SYNTH to try to connect them. And it's further pointless to suggest that if the victims behaved differently "nothing would happen" because we cannot know that. And it can likewise be said about the shooter.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * We do know the jury didnt consider Rosenbaums sexual crimes against young children . DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * From that (but I'd like to see it from a better RS), it would be fair to say "evidence related to the past criminal convictions of Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz was not allowed to be presented during the trial." This would identify him as a past convicted criminal, but we would not need to go into the details of what those were. --M asem (t) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, we do not know what factors the jury used, and it does not matter. It also does not matter for us what materials were or were not presented to the jury. It only matters what RS say about the story, and our description should reflect what the RS say per WP:NPOV. My very best wishes (talk) 18:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ::::"we would not need to go into the details of what those were"? Why not if that is exactly what the best available journalistic RS do? And why they do it? Because that is what a reader would like to know. That WaPo article was written by a real professional. We should follow such example. My very best wishes (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Enough of Rosenbaum's criminal history in reliable sources that's its fair game for the article. I dont see why this is so controversial. DarrellWinkler (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It is so controversial because wikipedia is inherently biased and there are people who are paid by a SuperPAC right here in this very discussion. It's funny to watch them try to bend rules and definitions just so that they don't have to mention relevant crimes of their favorite criminal. A co-founder of wikipedia himself admits it. 2001:871:237:AD39:BC3:D71C:15B:641B (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Rosenbaum's sex offender status is not a rumour, it is a fact backed by reliable sources including CNN. But it was not permitted as evidence, nor were historical videos of Rittenhouse. However, I don't see by what precedent we're not allowed to mention things that weren't evidence in a trial. We have a whole article on a victim of a murder, George Floyd, which covers material unrelated to him being murdered, including historical crimes which had no connection to him being murdered in broad daylight 14 years later. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Brookings Institution
It has been claimed that describing Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" in Brookings Institution is a BLP policy violation.

Specifically: In rolling back edits of Brookings Institution in which I described Igor Danchenko as "indicted Steele dossier source" — @SPECIFICO (reversion) and @Valjean (reversion) have described this text as a BLP violation.

1) Insofar as I understand BLP policy, the disputed "indicted Steele dossier source" text is not a BLP violation.

2) *If* the disputed text *was* a BLP policy violation then the place to object to "indicted Steele dossier source" would be in the Igor Danchenko article where description of Danchenko's indictment appears.

3) I've attempted to elicit from @Valjean and @SPECIFICO their reasoning for their claims of a BLP policy violation but I have been unsuccessful.

Am I correct that "... indicted Steele dossier source Igor Danchenko ..." appearing in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookings_Institution is not a BLP policy violation?

More discussion of this issue can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brookings_Institution#Former_Brooking_analyst_Igor_Danchenko_was_indicted_for_lying_to_the_FBI — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deicas (talk • contribs) 22:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that it is a BLP violation, rather an undue situation. You should be providing sources specifically linking their indictment with the Brookings Institute, otherwise it's undue, and likely synth, to include it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not a BLP violation at his bio article, which gives a broad view of his life and work. It is a violation at the Brookings article where this brief characterization of him excludes any more important fact or any fact relevant to his Brookings work. It misrepresents him, a living person.  SPECIFICO talk 22:48, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a BLP violation or that it misrepresents Danchenko, but I think adding it would be undue weight in the Brookings article at the moment. The only place Danchenko's name is in the article at the moment is in a long list of "notable scholars".  It would be odd to add an actual conviction to that list, let alone a mere indictment.  In addition, the reverted edit almost suggests that he was hired for the reason that he was an indicted source.  Whereas, in fact, if my understanding is correct, by the time Danchenko was indicted, he'd already moved on from Brookings.  I suspect that we will be hearing more about Brookings related to the Danchenko indictment in the future because from what I understand it's a bit of a nexus of DNC politicos and Russia analysts and the intelligence community, but for now it's too soon.  Bueller 007 (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would consider it a BLP violation, and also UNDUE. The paragraph is a list of people tied to an organization, so shoehorning in negative/controversial details only about Danchenko is the violation. It would be including "adulterer and racist Dr. Seuss" or "killer William S. Burroughs" in simple lists of author names—if those people were alive, that is. (I could think of some contemporary examples but including them here would be, well, BLP violations.) Now, if reliable sources widely connected the Brookings Institution, Igor Danchenko, and him being indicted as a/the Steele dossier source, there might be a case to mention that. But at that point, he wouldn't be just another name in a list. Woodroar (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources do exactly this. E.g., Brookings was subpoenaed for personnel files related to Danchenko, possibly among other documents. In addition, unlike Dr. Seuss being an adulterer (which is not what he's best known for), Danchenko is in fact best known for being the subsource of the Steele dossier (who was indicted for lying to the FBI about his sources). So it's not really a sensible comparison.  Nevertheless, I don't support inclusion. Bueller 007 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean multiple sources that do more than mention the organization a couple of times. The organization, being a source for the dossier, the indictment, all of it should really be the subject of multiple sources before we single out one person in an article about the organization. Woodroar (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Per @Woodroar's "if reliable sources widely connected the Brookings Institution, Igor Danchenko, and him being indicted as a/the Steele dossier source, there might be a case to mention that [in the Brookings article]".  Do I understand correctly that were sufficient citations to reliable sources provided that associated Danchenko and Danchenko's indictment to Brooking that this would address UNDUE and BLP claims over the disputed "indicted Steele dossier source" text?
 * It would seem that the way to address this "a case to mention that [in the Brookings article]" would be to create a new edit that more extensively cites the Danchenko-Danchenko's indictment-Brookings nexus and, if someone reverts the edit we can revisit the issue.  Do I have that right?
 * ——Deicas (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A good approach at this point would be to discuss the sources and allow a consensus to develop. Assuming that they satisfy concerns about BLP/UNDUE/etc., then everyone can agree on the best wording. Even better, extend an olive branch and let someone else add it to the article. Consider this the discuss phase of BRD. Moving back to the bold and revert stages over and over will only lead to more frustration. Woodroar (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Deicas, your first paragraph (addressed to Woodroar) makes a legitimate point, but we aren't there yet. What the future brings is unknown. If Brookings Institution is later shown to be involved in wrongdoing in connection with Danchenko and his indictment, then it might be justifiable and necessary to mention his indictment in that article, but we have not yet seen anything in RS to justify such an action. It would require a separate section dealing with the issue there, and that would be far from just the list we're talking about now.
 * As to your second paragraph, without solid RS justification, trying a new BOLD edit is ill-advised for the following reasons: (1) because you already know that this content is very contentious; (2) there is currently a consensus against including it; (3) the discussion is far from settled at the article talk page or here, so continue discussing. At this point, you need a solid consensus before making any edit to that content. See it as a minefield, and we don't make bold edits in minefields. We discuss and make mistakes on the talk page, not edits in the article.
 * An alternative to continued discussion is to drop the issue now and bow to consensus. We have already wasted a lot of time on this issue. -- Valjean (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm academically interested in whether this was a BLP violation or if it was proscribed by other policies/guidelines. Regardless, SPECIFICO and Valjean were right to remove the descriptor. Firefangledfeathers 14:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

My reasoning has been expressed in these comments: I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well. It's a gratuitous and unnecessary editorial attack where it's irrelevant. This is not a situation where a known quack is described as a pusher of pseudoscientific nonsense in their bio article and that description is repeated in an article about the pseudoscience they push. Such mention is justified because it is relevant in both places. This is very different as Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article. They are relevant at Igor Danchenko, Steele dossier, Russia investigation origins counter-narrative and John Durham, but not Brookings Institution. Just because something is a fact does not justify using it where it's not relevant. -- Valjean (talk) 00:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) "It is notable for Danchenko's article but not for this one. Here it's a WP:COATRACK violation as it isn't about Brookings and is irrelevant in this context. That's what makes it a BLP vio."
 * 2) "Let me leave this to ponder. Maybe instead of calling it a BLP violation HERE at this article, let's just admit it's an example of gratuitous poisoning the well, and thus an editorial violation of NPOV."


 * @Valjean: Are your assertions about "WP:COATRACK", "NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" germane to the discussion, here at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, on the topic of whether a disputed edit is or is not BLP violation?
 * Shouldn't you take your "WP:COATRACK", "NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" to the article talk page? Deicas (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, my assertions are germane to this discussion as they speak directly to the point of this thread. For all the reasons I have mentioned, the "disputed edit" is wrong on many levels. It's a perfect storm of wrong. It's hard to violate so many PAG in one edit, but that's what I see happening. Mind you, I am not accusing you of ill will in doing so. Shit happens, and when the majority of other editors don't agree, it's best to stop flogging a dead horse.
 * What you wrote above ("I've attempted to elicit from @Valjean and @SPECIFICO their reasoning for their claims of a BLP policy violation but I have been unsuccessful.") is not true. I have indeed previously expressed similar concerns at the Brookings talk page, but apparently to no avail, otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion here. Since you didn't seem to understand my point there, I have followed Einstein's(?) advice (I'm not insane) and explained more thoroughly here than I did there. -- Valjean (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valjean: You claim that your "assertions are germane to this discussion as they speak directly to the point of this thread"?  FALSE.  "[T]he point of this thread", here at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is to evaluate claims of violation of Wikipedia BLP policy.
 * Your digressions into "WP:COATRACK", "NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" are off-topic in this evaluation of claims of violation of Wikipedia BLP policy. You should take those matters to the Brookings talk page and/or raise those issues at the appropriate notice board.
 * Please strike out your "best to stop flogging a dead horse", above. That claim is uncivil. Deicas (talk) 03:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I did mention BLP above, and throwing the others in hurts nothing. It just makes the case that it is all of those things that make it a BLP violation. A BLP violation nearly always is caused by violations of other PAG. Without those violations, it (generic "it") may not be a BLP violation.
 * Above I do mention BLP, but you have conveniently left it out (and that smacks of wikilawyering), so here's the full sentence:
 * "I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well."
 * The very first thing in that list is BLP, and I'm not going to separate it from the others. Irrelevant mentions of negative facts about Danchenko are smears and BLP violations, even when the facts are true. If it is a context-relevant mention, then it's not a BLP violation. Because it isn't relevant to Brookings, that's what makes it a BLP violation, so my comments are still very on-topic here. -- Valjean (talk) 05:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Valjean: With regard to the text in dispute, "indicted Steele dossier source",  you make a number of assertions.  With a view toward clarity, I will address them individually.
 * 1) You assert the the disputed text is  "a WP:COATRACK violation ".  Per WP:COATRACK, " A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects."
 * I don't see how the addition of the 4 words "indicted Steele dossier source" turns Brooking Institution into a "[a] coatrack article".  Please explain your reasoning.  I suspect that your are claiming WP:COATRACK when you should be claiming UNDUE.
 * 2) You assert that the disputed 4 words are "an example of gratuitous poisoning the well, and thus an editorial violation of NPOV."  "{P]oisoning the well" is not part of Wikipedia policy and does not bear on the disputed 4 words.
 * 3) You assert that the disputed 4 words constitute a NPOV violation.  NPOV policy provides that " All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."
 * Please explain how the disputed 4 four words, which are undisputed FACTS, are unfair or disproportional relative to the entire Brookings institution Article.  Given the extensive coverage of Danchenko's indictment and his connection to the Brookings Institution, surely you're not claiming that the disputed 4 words are not included among "significant views", are you?
 * 4) You assert that the disputed 4 words are UNDUE and "Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article". The definition of UNDUE includes " Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * Given this definition of UNDUE and given the extensive coverage that Danchenko's indictment and his association with Brookings you need to, Valjean, justify you claim of UNDUE and your claim that "Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article".  When you make that justification, would you please be sure to quote the provision of WP:UNDUE that you are invoking.
 * ——Deicas (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please explain how the disputed 4 four words, which are undisputed FACTS, are unfair or disproportional relative to the entire Brookings institution Article.  Given the extensive coverage of Danchenko's indictment and his connection to the Brookings Institution, surely you're not claiming that the disputed 4 words are not included among "significant views", are you?
 * 4) You assert that the disputed 4 words are UNDUE and "Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article". The definition of UNDUE includes " Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."
 * Given this definition of UNDUE and given the extensive coverage that Danchenko's indictment and his association with Brookings you need to, Valjean, justify you claim of UNDUE and your claim that "Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article".  When you make that justification, would you please be sure to quote the provision of WP:UNDUE that you are invoking.
 * ——Deicas (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Given this definition of UNDUE and given the extensive coverage that Danchenko's indictment and his association with Brookings you need to, Valjean, justify you claim of UNDUE and your claim that "Danchenko's legal problems are irrelevant at the Brookings article".  When you make that justification, would you please be sure to quote the provision of WP:UNDUE that you are invoking.
 * ——Deicas (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ——Deicas (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ——Deicas (talk) 08:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wow! That's a whole lot of wikilawyering to digest. I fear you're trying desperately to find some very narrow and exceptional sliver of legalistic justification to excuse using irrelevant, negative, and unkind descriptors where they don't belong. That's a classic BLP violation, as well as violating the spirit of COATRACK. There are situations where we are required to include such negative content, but this is not one of them.
 * While I'd love to use several hours (NOT!!) to explain in detail how I understand those PAG in this situation (Nil Einne really gets it), I will save that time and just cut to the chase. The point of BLP is based in a simple piece of wisdom from Fitzgerald, and I don't give a flying fuck if this is or is not found in the BLP policy. It should be:
 * "To be kind is more important than to be right." -- F. Scott Fitzgerald
 * It matters not that you might be able to finagle some legalistic and weird exception (being "right") to justify being unkind to Danchenko. Ask yourself these questions before describing any living person:
 * Is it proper, in this context, to still be factually unkind by piling on irrelevant descriptors? (The spirit of COATRACK.)
 * Is this description unkind? If so, then do RS justify making the edit? NPOV does require that we often write things that are unkind because we are required to describe unpleasant realities in the spirit that those RS do it, but BLP limits if and how we do it. (BLP and WP:Public figure)
 * That first question is the problem with your addition of those four words. They are irrelevant in the context of the list at Brookings, and that makes them a BLP violation, undue, and coatracking a topic where it doesn't belong (and don't wikilawyer that COATRACK is normally thought of as being about articles). Just be kind, even to Danchenko.
 * Keep in mind that we don't know why he lied to the FBI. Partisan sources are making much more of this than may be justified. It's just another attempt for them to score more points. The fact is that he had an immunity agreement with the FBI, and yet he lied. That's bad. Some of his lies are consequential because they wasted the FBI's time. Even if he was justified (in other situations) to lie to protect his sources, one does not lie to the FBI and get away with it. Even though he lied, we still aren't sure if it has any effect on whether the lies affect the truth or falsity of some allegations (and many allegations have nothing to do with Danchenko or his sources). AFAIK, even under oath, he didn't deny that the allegations were true. His lies were about sourcing, etc. (But I digress, so enough about that. Kindness is still paramount.)
 * As I wrote above: "I see the inclusion of irrelevant descriptions of Danchenko at the Brookings Institution article as a violation of principles found at BLP, COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well." -- Valjean (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valjean:  Above you are making false claims of "consensus".  You assert " there is currently a consensus against including it".  Your claim of "consensus" is immediately  belied by your own " the discussion is far from settled at the article talk page or here".  And yet you continue to make false claims of "consensus" — " An alternative to continued discussion is to drop the issue now and bow to consensus."
 * Please see my comment at your talk page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Valjean#Your_false_claims_of_%22consensus%22
 * Please strike out or substantiate your accusations, above, that I am engaged  wikilawyering . I am simply attempting to cite and follow Wikipedia policy.  You should do the same.
 * You assert " There are situations where we are required to include such negative content, but this is not one of them."  Please explain and justify, citing applicable Wikipedia policy(s), for your claim that "this not one of them".
 * Please don't cite  F. Scott Fitzgerald, that's disruptive.  A quote from Fitzgerald is not Wikipedia policy.  Please base you claims on Wikipedia policy.
 * Your "[k]eep in mind that we don't know why he lied to the FBI"  and "Kindness is still paramount" are disruptive digressions.  Please strike them out.  That Danshenko was indicted is undisputed.
 * —Deicas (talk) 01:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valjean:  If you are going to claim "COATRACK and/or NPOV and/or UNDUE" would you please make those claims clearly?  If you persist with those claims then I will will quote your claims in a filing(s) the applicable content notice board. Don't obfuscate your claims with irrelevant comments like "being kind".
 * I suggest, @Valjean, in the interest of clarity, that you attempt to write sentences that follow the general form of "As , the disputed 4 words, "indicted Steele dossier source", are unsuitable for inclusion in Brookings Institution because ".
 * —Deicas (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest rather than continuing with whatever you're trying to accomplish here, you look at the thread you started requesting your topic ban be lifted and start providing some assurances that you're done with your disruptive editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @ ScottishFinnishRadish: If you are going to accuse me of "disruptive editing", it would be helpful for you to QUOTE one or more of my statements that you believe to be "disruptive editing" and, then, we could discuss the specific merits of your claim.
 * —Deicas (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you at User talk:Valjean. "Who died and made you king of anything?" (Sara Bareilles) -- Valjean (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * you seem confused about BLP. If someone violates undue, NPOV or even COATRACK in relation to a living person, then this is almost definitely a BLP violation. BLP means we have to make sure we comply with our other policies and guidelines in relation to how we cover living persons, so we do not cause harm by mentioning stuff we shouldn't or mentioning something in a manner which may mislead or confuse readers about the living person. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne — I'm confused about the sequence and forum in which a claimed BLP policy violation is adjudicated and what constitutes a BLP policy violation. Do I understand correctly that ANY disputed edit that references a living person is adjudicated at the Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? And if I dispute @Valjean's "COATRACK, NPOV, UNDUE and poisoning the well" that I should dispute those claims HERE and not at the article's talk page?
 * Would you please point to the BLP policy that addresses this specific aspect of BLP policy? I'd hoped that there was a bright line policy interpretation to the effect that 'if a fact in a living person's biography is NOT a BLP policy violation then repeating that fact elsewhere in Wikipedia is also NOT a BLP policy violation BUT may meet any of the other myriad of Wikipedia policy reasons to exclude content (eg. WP:UNDUE).  It would seem that my hope for a BLP bright line is for naught.
 * I suspect that, as further revelations about the intersection of persons associated with Brookings and the emerge, that we will be revisiting these issues.
 * ——Deicas (talk) 05:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * First, I'll clarify I should have said our content policies and guidelines. Anyway as for your question have you read BLP? The very first sentence says:  NPOV is one of the 3 core policies listed there. UNDUE weight is a subsection of NPOV. COATTRACK is an essay but it primarily relates to compliance with NPOV and specifically mentions "" Yes this part isn't as clear cut about the relevance of material about living persons in articles that aren't biographies but ultimately it's an essay relating as I said mostly to compliance with NPOV. And as BLP itself clearly says it applies to any material about living persons anywhere, including on this page BTW.  In some cases it can be helpful to discuss problems about articles in other places, even if they relate to material on living persons e.g. WP:RSN, WP:FTN or yes even WP:NPOVN but there should be no question about the relevance of BLPN and BLP when the concerns relate to what we say about some living person. There is no bright line, it's never okay to violate our content policies and harm a living person just because you're doing it on some other page or in some way which isn't directly addressed in BLP.  If material about a living person can be covered in one page where it's relevant and in context but cannot be in another page because it's irrelevant and out of context then yes this is a BLP violation. You're violating BLP which clearly says we must get articles right in the parts which concern living persons and ensure we comply with NPOV in relation to material on living persons.  This doesn't mean all such violations should be brought up here or even that it's necessary to bring up BLP. Often discussion on the article talk page is sufficient and if it's not sometimes other noticeboards or dispute mechanisms may be appropriate and it's not necessary to bring up BLP. (For example, in some cases it might be fine to simply start a RfC.) However any editor editing something about a living person should always have BLP at the back of their mind and while it's fine to suggest it might be better to resolve some dispute elsewhere, I don't think it should ever be said that concerns about our coverage of a living person are off-topic on BLPN.  A final point which since the concern here is NPOV which is directly address by BLP is largely irrelevant. But since I said it. If any editor wants to dispute whether violation of other policies besides BLP itself, NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR are BLP violations since it doesn't really mention this (discounting the limited mentions e.g. of our external link guideline). Well I'll first point out it says "". And I'd say getting the article right must include complying with out other policies (and generally our guidelines). It also says "" so again recognition compliance with our content policies for material about living persons is a must.  Nil Einne (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne: Yes.  I've read  BLP.  To my knowledge no aspect of the 4 words under dispute DIRECTLY violate BLP policy;  any claimed BLP policy violation would of necessity have to be INDIRECT, as a consequence of another content policy violation (e.g. UNDUE) of the edit under dispute.
 * ——Deicas (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * so you're saying that although BLP says all content about living persons must adhere strictly with NPOV ("must adhere strictly to ..... Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV ....."), if content about living person does not adhere strictly with NPOV it is not directly violate BLP even though it's clearly not adhering strictly with a policy BLP explicitly says it must adhere strictly to? In any case, it's largely a moot point. Call it an indirect violation if you want. Ultimately provided you recognise it is a BLP violation I DGAF what you want to call it. The problem is when you claim it isn't a BLP violation because it only violates NPOV, or worse criticise someone for bringing up their belief it is a NPOV violation about a living person on BLPN. (For further clarity, I'm not saying you must agree it is a violation of NPOV. My point is simply that you need to recognise if it is one, since it concerns a living person it is a BLP violation. Whether you want to call it a direct BLP violation, an indirect BLP violation, a NPOV BLP violation, a slight BLP violation or some other form of BLP violation doesn't matter. Although I believe it violates UNDUE, I have no interest in getting involved in this discussion. The only reason I did is due to concerns over seeing you suggest we should not be discussion NPOV violations about living person on BLPN since it's not a BLP violation to violate NPOV in material concerning a living person.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No. I did not "claim it isn't a BLP violation because it only violates NPOV"...I claimed that *if* it violated NPOV and if it refered to a living person, only then would it be a BLP violation.
 * —Deicas (talk) 02:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to say, I have not seen this much double talk and wikilawyering in a long time. And, yes, wikilawyering is the most accurate and precise term available, and no, it's not supposed to be flattering.


 * The thing is, Wikipedia policy is not written like nor can be argued like a lawyer would argue law, which is what you're doing. You can't nitpick it apart like that and expect to get anywhere. I always tell people in this situation: it's best to think of policy as being one giant equation, where information must satisfy every part of that equation to be included. In nitpicking, you tend to miss the forest for all the trees.


 * A big problem you seem to be having is that you incorporate a lot of logical fallacies into your arguments --not the least of which is the confusing way you present them (double speak). These include but are not limited to circular reasoning, cum-hoc fallacy, affirming the disjunct, cherry picking, argument from ignorance, argument from silence, appeal to authority, appeal to emotion, etc., etc... Haven't you noticed your arguments fail to convince others? This is all part of why.


 * As for the text you want added, I have to question why? It's terrible grammar and very awkward to read, not to mention irrelevant to the article in question. It comes off as puffery, and is just badly written. Without even looking into BLP or NPOV issues, I can say that it sticks out like a sore thumb and seems very out of place in the proposed section. Zaereth (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * To flip it around, it would be like adding "and net neutrality supporter" to Mike Wheeler in the same line. Yes, I can produce tons of sources about Wheeler's support of net neutrality when he was at the FCC, but it has nothing to do with the BI, would be out of line given no mention of other aspects of the other people listed, and would seem like being a peacock issue. The ideas argued for inclusion work both ways related to overly positive material about a person. --M asem (t) 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Exactly, but at least even that is well-written. I read "indicted steel dossier source..." and thought, "what the hell is a steel dossier and how would you possibly indict one?" It came off as patent nonsense, that is, until and only if you decide to click the wikilink. Something like that needs enough context to tell what it's talking about from context alone, or else it's just meaningless jibber. And this is not the place to do that. Not to mention the grammatical construction is awkward and completely disrupts the flow, causing a snag for the reader. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Bernard Rhodes
Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Real Punk Rockers periodically adds unreferenced and incorrect information to this page. He has now included the middle name Gary which is incorrect also clearly misleading and could be used in an identity theft. Since all attempts to reason fail, please could an editor with authority rectify this misrepresentation of a living person — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour (talk • contribs) 12:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the full name (and the date of birth) per WP:BLPPRIVACY. I saw that had been partially blocked from the article for one week, so it may be appropriate to turn that into a permanent partial block. Woodroar (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that but unfortunately Real Punk Rockers has again reinstated the middle name Gary without any reference point. If this could be dealt with again please because all requests for Real Punk Rocker to provide source material are ignored — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshcolour (talk • contribs) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. The block should probably be reinstated, per Woodroar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They're past 3RR now, I'm still reverting, as I assume WP:BLPPRIVACY reverts fall under the BLP exemption to 3RR. If I'm incorrect, someone please let me know. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * They have progressed to severe blp violations on their talk and user pages. Needs an immediate block and revdel. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Jameela Jamil
Attention needed at Jameela Jamil, where a lengthy conspiratorial personal life section aims to imply, using extreme synthesis and poor sources such as Instagram users, that Jamil is a serial liar and maybe even has Münchhausen syndrome, when no reliable source makes these claims in their own words. BLP violations have been made on the talk page, even by a user who is actually in favor of (mostly) redacting the section. A BLP-compliant personal life rewrite by me in this diff has been reverted. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I just want to add some emphasis here--it's an interesting situation for me, as I think there are reasonable arguments on both "sides" of the issue. I certainly have a take, but I am more than willing to be convinced that I'm wrong. In general, I think fresh eyes would be helpful.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Bilorv, as I described in detail on the article talk page, your version of the 'personal life' section is inaccurate, misleading and incomplete in terms of what the sources actually report/show that subject has actually said/experienced. Your version also takes a POV of taking the subject's word about specific supposed experiences as fact, when these specific supposed experiences have been reported as being disputed and the use of 'she states' or 'she has stated' to precede descripition of things she has said about herself already seems to have consensus as NPOV. As your version has not gained consensus, it should be reverted or the section reduced to a stub until we do have consensus on how to write this section and what to include. We must not allow personal feelings towards the subject to cloud what we write or be seen to; this objectivity is what I and other editors were aiming for in the much more detailed and extensively-sourced version prior to 14 November that had been live for many months with no objections, before you deleted most of it and replaced it with your truncated version. However, if the previous version does not have consensus either, then we all need to work together to write a new version that does.


 * The allegations that the subject has fabricated aspects of her personal life are notable and widely reported, including by reliable sources such as The Independent, The New Zealand Herald, and Los Angeles Times. Multiple references to these allegations appear prominently when conducting a Google search for the subject. We are not engaging in a 'conspiracy'; we are trying to find a NPOV way of discussing the widespread reporting of the these allegations, as well as where necessary directly discussing the some of the subject's own direct statements about herself as reported in various media, or what is explicitly shown in the various media such as the Hardtalk video, Fashion Targets Breast Cancer segment and Orange Rockcorps videos.


 * Please also state what you mean by 'BLP violations have been made on the talk page'. Uakari (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh Author inaccuracies.
help with Author's Mikey Walsh biography section- it states that the Author 'suffers from Poor mental health & social anxiety disorder.', but is false information, & the cited links they are using for that statement are for reviews and interviews in regards to authors books, but not on this statement, which makes it false. the Articles belong on the page, as they are, all based on Authors books, and can be added to any other statement in the biography, but the "mental health" statement, has no cited, or truthful base. There are accounts that change this page in bad faith, from casting false cited opinion to even changing the persons name. is there any way more protection can be done? thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.183.168 (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree the first 2 sources don't seem to support the claim. The third source I'm not sure but since the quote doesn't seem to and the first two sources didn't I removed the claim. See the article talk page for more. Nil Einne (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Eva K. Lee
(This was auto-archived, not sure why.)

This article appears to be largely edited by one user who has edited only this page. It appears to be a self-promotion, especially the "personal" section that contains a lengthy "defense" against criminal charges.

Some examples:

"By all measures, the I/UCRC center led by Lee was a tremendous success in terms of its technical progress, educational value, and societal impact. with numerous projects garnered practice excellence awards."

"The NSF Office of Inspector General disagreed with the counting of membership. They considered only cash flow into Georgia Tech as membership fee."

"On September 18, 2019 the National Science Foundation General Council issued a final Notice of Administrative Action regarding the NSF Office of the Inspector General Report of Investigation, Unfortunately, U.S. Attorney's office refused to drop charges."

"During sentencing, hospital and academic leaders described Lee as a truly gifted and selfless individual with extraordinary talents, exceptional heart, and full of love for others, who works tirelessly for the community and for the world; an individual who is committed to serving the minorities and the disadvantaged."

"The case is unusual in multiple aspects: The non-compliance of NSF Office of Inspector General investigators; the refusal of U.S. Attorney to dismiss the charges; the repeated denial of Georgia Tech administrators to requests from top U.S. health officials to restore Lee's access to her computers while COVID-19 rages across the country."

The rest of the article also reads like a self-promotion and/or CV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.197.88.101 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting
Contentious material ✅

about living persons ✅

unsourced ✅

must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page ✅

especially if potentially libellous ✅

Here is the diff that restores the libel https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kenosha_unrest_shooting&diff=prev&oldid=1057268053

67.174.115.222 (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)


 * While I don't think "murder" should be included in the article, I also don't think it's the kind of contentious information that demands immediate removal from a talk page. People are free to disagree about the moral valence of what happened.  If there was some serious doubt about the underlying facts, that would change my analysis, but there is not.  Jury verdicts don't determine reality, and people can reasonably disagree with them.  So, just my opinion, but I would say article?  No.  Talk page?  Probably not worthy of removing just for that.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have trouble thinking of another article where someone was acquitted on all charges and we'd be fine calling them a murderer, even on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a distinct difference where the facts are contested. So--someone who claimed he didn't do the act we certainly could not call a murderer.  But as here, we're talking about an interpretation of agreed-upon facts.  For what it's worth, I think it's totally hat-worthy as forum territory, I just don't think it demands immediate removal.  People may certainly disagree. Dumuzid (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Murder is a term of law. Someone acquitted is, by definition, not a murderer. To call that person a murderer is a pretty severe BLP violation. Someone can disagree with the jury all they want, but they are specifically not a murderer. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a step too far for me, as we use "murder" quite colloquially all the time. I would agree that saying "a jury found the accused guilty of murder" would be a violation, but to say that anytime "murder" is used implies a legal conclusion does not seem apt to me.  Moreover, the jury finding simply means that the prosecution did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. I suspect we will have to agree to disagree on this.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The colloquial use is one thing, but in this circumstance we have We need to stop classifying murder based on a failed justice system, nor what weak lawsuit-avoiding terminology the press uses. This case exemplifies this again. That's literally saying that they are using the legal term, and the article subject is still a murderer, despite the result of a trial. I think there's some wiggle room if the use followed what you're describing, but that is specifically not what we're dealing with here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The word "classifying" gives me slight pause, but overall, I am just not that bothered. Imagine a hypothetical murder case--resulting in acquittal--where a juror is interviewed afterward, and says "Oh, I am pretty sure Dumuzid murdered that guy.  I just had some lingering doubts."  That strikes me as a perfectly viable stance for a juror, or, indeed, anyone else to take. Dumuzid (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, like you said, agree to disagree. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Totally Forum-y. Should be hatted/removed just as it would be at any other article. Arkon (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

RfC on whether and how to cover J. K. Rowling's trans-related views in the lead of her article
Please see: Talk:J. K. Rowling

I am "advertising" this RfC more broadly to relevant pages because someone selectively notified three socio-political wikiprojects that are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single viewpoint, and the article already has a long history of factional PoV editwarring.

Central matters in this discussion and the threads leading up to it are labeling of Rowling, labeling of commenters on Rowling, why Rowling is notable, what is due or undue in the lead section, and whether quasi-numeric claims like "many", "a few", etc. in this context are legitimate or an OR/WEASEL issue. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The idea that WikiProject Feminism and WikiProject Women Writers are likely to vote-stack the RfC with a single socio-political viewpoint suggests BLP issues on the part of the poster, more than anything else. But by all means, we do need fresh eyes on the lead of an article that had seen so much whitewashing and FALSEBALANCE POV-based editing. Newimpartial (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no harm in leaving a notification here whatever the reason since it's clearly relevant to this board. However the notification is clearly not neutral and so has a strong risk of being WP:Canvassing. Please ensure that neutral notifications are used in the future. There is a template that can be used. Hopefully with a neutral notification there will be no need to argue on this board about it, reducing neutrality even more. Nil Einne (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Khalid Skah
Various IPs from the range 2a01:cb05:8ad0:3d00:, not just the one listed above, have removed Khalid Skah's personal life and family sections several times since 11 October. They have put in their edit summaries, "I would like to keep my private life preserve [sic]", "Khalid Skah doesnt want his private life in wikipedia", and "stop publishing a bullshit stories  [sic]".  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 14:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It isn't just about 'Khalid Skah's personal life and family' though, is it? Not with custody battles, "off-duty naval rangers" and diplomatic disputes involved. Some of the sourcing looks questionable, and I'd have to question the balance too. And the section about Skah's sister is entirely unsourced, and doesn't belong in the article at all. Given that there is a WP:BLP exception to WP:3RR for removing policy-violating content, but not for restoring it, I'd caution against engaging in an edit war, leave it blanked for now, and then look to see if there is a balanced, policy-compliant way to resolve this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The majority of the sourcing are tabloids and shouldn't have been reinstated. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion request

 * Róbert Wessman
 * User:Haeito1010

I have reason to believe that this page was created in bad faith by an editor who has not disclosed a Conflict of Interest. In the interest of transparency, I am acting on behalf of Róbert Wessman, the article subject, which is why I have not nominated the page directly.

The article was created and substantially edited by Haeito1010 in August. The first thing that raised suspicion of COI is that this User has only created two articles, possibly making them a single purpose account. They have a rather basic User page too, avoiding revealing too much personal information, but also making significant use of templates.

They used their sandbox in an extremely unusual way, uploading a word at a time:

or a batch of characters at a time:
 * 1) 1.	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031397246
 * 2) 2.	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031397270
 * 3) 3.	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031397298
 * 1) 4.	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=1031677459
 * 2) 5.	https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Haeito1010/sandbox&diff=next&oldid=1031677459

Their total edit count is 765, 742 of which are to the sandbox. I think it is not unreasonable to assume that this may have been an attempt to inflate the edit count and look artificially more proficient as an editor. It is also plausible to assume the editor was copying and pasting from a draft, given that in example 5 they uploaded a sequence of characters (%C3%ADa/oG49AQAAIAAJ?), which is not naturalistic.

On August 22nd Haeito1010 made an edit changing the content of their sandbox from a draft on the composer Juan María Guelbenzu Fernández to a draft on Wessman. This time they did not upload in small chunks, but as a long form page with an Infobox. This again suggests that the editor had a draft ready to upload: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AHaeito1010%2Fsandbox&type=revision&diff=1040091856&oldid=1031837718

After this, the draft was moved (again in chunks!) to mainspace, the sandbox was blanked, and Haeito1010 has not used their sandbox since. Indeed, they have not edited at all since 22 August, when they made 12 edits to the article on Róbert Wessman. This suggests to me that all of their activity was designed solely to create this page.

The only other pages they have worked on are Sociedad de Cuartetos and Alvogen, both of which have a connection to the pages this user has created. However, as Fernández died in 1886, it seems more likely that they would be paid to work on Wessman.

The article should be deleted as it imparts little information about Wessman himself that would be classed as encyclopaedic. References 1, 2, 6, and 8 are from primary sources, 7 is clearly biased, and references 12 and 14 are dead. There are also some nebulous statements which need sourcing and don’t have any: “The actual ownership of the company was somewhat unclear for around a decade's time”. This would be poor for an article which falls under WP:BLP in any case, but given the strange behaviour of the account creator, I would suggest that the page be deleted and created from scratch again, if Wessman is considered notable enough.

Noemimanical (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I have removed the contentious paragraph (I didn't read the above appeal!) it was far too much detail of accusations that were never upheld. I also agree he's probably not notable.JeffUK (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored the content in that section as it appears to be reliably sourced and covered in major news outlets. Whether the article subject is notable, he appears to be a public figure, and these accusations would seem to be a fairly significant aspect of his life with coverage over a period of time. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry I think there has been a misunderstanding based on another, separate thread about Wessman. Creating dedicated controversy sections - especially on a preprepared draft - can be a sign of bias, but wallyfromdilbert had already reviewed and merged this section to better comply with site guidelines, so it is not really the concern I wanted to raise. My worry is that the page creator acted duplicitously to get this article created in the first place. Their contributions are just too weird for me to believe that they are acting in good faith, and the article therefore can’t be said to meet NPOV. Ideally, someone without a motive should create the page, going through the proper Articles for Creation process. Noemimanical (talk) 09:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Is it worth nominating the page for deletion directly to see what the consensus is? The responses so far perhaps indicate that very few people are actually interested in the article contents, which again suggests to me that this article doesn’t pass notability criteria. Noemimanical (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Michael Beschloss
I've never edited this article but it came to my attention when I gave someone a DS alert and noticed this (which has been slightly changed since added). "Beschloss has been characterized by some as a "left-wing historian" for bias in favor of the Democratic Party. "

I've explained to the editor that "some" can be a problem and normally should be attributed. The "Elegant News" source is an anonymous story written in broken English on a site with no evident oversite. The Fox site has an author, but is that sufficient? There is also an SPA who has edited it and that of his wife for years, - the same state where the subjects live. I'm thinking of blocking that editor from the two articles, allowing them to use the talk page. I don't intend to edit the article myself. Doug Weller talk 16:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Fox doesn't cut it for political commentary, per WP:RSPparticularly when the other source is of such poor quality. Seems like a topic for WP:RSN, though. To me, it feels like WP:PC would be appropriate for the two pages in question, given the nature of the disruption. You're uninvolved, so sanctions on the user are fine too. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 19:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete the lefty label and give him hell for "the imperial presidency is back. We just saw it". fiveby(zero) 19:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Rachel Parris
Dear team, I think the photo on the Wiki page for Rachel Parris, British comedian, is not actually her? Having only just joined Wiki, I am unsure how to resolve this, other than informing you.

Many thanks Kenny61ag (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)


 * The best place to raise this might be at Talk:Rachel Parris, though I think you'd need to be more specific as to why you think this isn't her. The photo apparently dates from 2008, and she probably looks a little different now. From a quick search for other photos/video of Parris, I can't really see any obvious reason for doubt. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears to be her, 13 years ago. The image is dated to November 2008. I looked at other images of her, and some look quite a bit more like that image. That said, I'm not certain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's definitely her. She appeared on an episode of Eggheads before she was famous and there are other images on the web showing her on that show with the same clothing. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Marglin
The Career section contains two paragraphs without any citations regarding the subject's most recent book, some of which seems to be a summary of said book, phrased not as a description of the book's contents or its arguments, but as fact. The Personal Life section contains no citations and lists the subject's children and their occupations, including a child who is listed as a recent high school graduate and another as a current college student. From the edit history, it appears that this article was edited several times by a Smarglin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.99.239.36 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Sarath Weerasekara

 * This article is mainly based on unsourced content. Pls, help to improve this article or remove unsourced sourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:ab29:74b5:b961:7cef:dcc1 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Wasantha Karannagoda
This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:d468:24f1:5711:35b9:751f (talk • contribs) 15:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Roshan Goonetileke
This article contains a large amount of unsourced content. Pls, help to remove this unsourced content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:c00:d002:d468:24f1:5711:35b9:751f (talk • contribs) 15:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and other issues at List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch
This list repeatedly uses names of suspects of serious crimes with no indication of conviction. Many of the sources are just republications of press releases and similar low quality sources. There's also a significantly promotional tone to the whole article, but that is a separate issue.

Unfortunately, I'm editing on mobile right now, so I cannot go at the article with a machete. If appreciate if anyone else could take a look at this and see if they agree with my BLP concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Completely agree, and I have started the process of going through and removing my concerns. I am quite a slow editor, however, and don't have great amounts of time today.  More eyes would be welcome, first to make sure I am not simply wrong, but also to continue improving the article.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, while the method used appears to be notable, I feel a list of every time it's used may be ripe for deletion. Unless we're maintaining lists of every time fingerprints are used I don't think it should really be a list article about "suspects." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've nominated this for deletion pon those bases: see Articles for deletion/List of suspected perpetrators of crimes identified with GEDmatch. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I suggest renaming the article to "List of people convicted of crimes identified with GEDmatch". That takes care of the BLP problem if it's enforced, which should be the case for all articles. Sundayclose (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed most of the content from the article as way too much of it was WP:BLPCRIME violations. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

John Everett-Heath
The page on John Everett-Heath, who is presumably still living, does not give the place and date of birth (or only the year). I'm looking for those data, but can someone else try to find them? Thank you, --Gab.pr (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Kia Labeija
Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Professor Brian Cox
Hi - the listing for Professor Brian Cox is inaccurate. It lists Cox as a professor of particle physics in the School of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Manchester. He is actually listed as Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science on the Departments website.

https://www.physics.manchester.ac.uk/about/people/academic-and-research-staff/

I have tried to amend it a couple of times, but have never done this before and it doesn't appear to have worked. Cox's title is an important distinction as he is relatively little published academically as a particle physicist.

I would love someone to help correct this error.

Thanks, Piers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:A32E:5E01:240B:9A82:E850:AE4D (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It isn't an error, both statements are true, see the Royal Society's own website: "Brian Cox is Professor of Particle Physics at the University of Manchester and The Royal Society Professor for Public Engagement in Science..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

owen benjamin
In the Owen Benjamin article, the Joe Rogan podcast is implied to be a far-right podcast where Benjamin stated alt-right views. If one watches the episode, it is instead a confrontation by Rogan to convince him to stop with far-right Twitter rants. This article heavily implies that it was instead a place where he espoused such views, and I think the language used is loaded. I would agree that the views are indeed alt-right and may be classified as such, but I think the implications of the article are misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18e:c501:dad0:e4d0:c14e:d0e1:d1d8 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Our article Owen Benjamin hasn't been modified since October and I don't see where it does anything like what you claim. The only reference to the Joe Rogan podcast is: There's no commentary on the views of the Daily Wire, Joe Rogan or Steven Crowder or Vox Day, nor on what Owen Benjamin did on them. There is only mention that PragerU is conservative and InfoWars and is far right. P.S. I should clarify I only checked that Joe Rogan wasn't mentioned elsewhere. I do not know if the views or what Owen Benjamin did on those other shows is elaborated elsewhere in our article on . Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

LaMarr Hoyt
Earlier today (morning of November 30), Dan Evans, who worked for the Chicago White Sox during the 1980s, tweeted out condolences on the death of LaMarr Hoyt. He doesn't have a blue checkmark, but that probably is him. Lots of people have tweeted out condolences, including national baseball reporters with blue checkmarks, but the sourcing is weak. This article is the closest I see to confirmation, saying that Hoyt has "reportedly" died.

I've already semi-protected the article on BLP grounds. But, what gives? Don't you think that the Chicago Tribune would've written an obituary on a former Cy Young Award winner by now? The story hasn't been denied by anyone to this point, but of course that's not proof of anything. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press has now run his obit. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Margot Black
User Wordie (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wordie) is making malicious and libelous changes to Margot Black's page as part of a multi-platform continuing campaign to discredit and harass. This has resulted in employment implications and must stop.

Link to diff: [] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.96.2 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Those edits were made back in March, but I agree that they were poorly sourced. Two medium posts, which should never be used in a BLP, and this are not leadworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Kaminski (musician)
His age does not properly verified from this source that would violate this policy on WP:BLPPRIVACY for birth dates. Also, the misuse of WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPPRIMARY as well. --49.150.96.127 (talk) 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Atlanta (magazine) is a reliable source, and says that he was 39 years old in April 2016. I don't see any BLP concerns, and not sure what BLPPRIMARY has to do with anything here, and so I have restored the article subject's age. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for quickly resolving this dispute. To me it feels that this IP user is approaching harassment as they police my edits each day. Thrakkx (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * but it's not likely a dispute, so this date of birth is likely unquestionable. --49.150.96.127 (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know why the IP editor is repeatedly attempting to claim that the content in this article is not sourced or needs to be verified, but their WP:HOUNDING of the other editor needs to stop. I have also left a message on their talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Daniel Balaji
Date of birth : 8 April 1975 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhishek1204 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @Abhishek1204 But why have you posted that here? Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 15:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:DOB. What's your source? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Elias Davidsson
The entry contains the defamatory claim that I, Elias Davidsson, am a "conspiracy theorist". This claim should be removed. I am a scholar and respectable author and have nothing to do with conspiracy theories. Please acknowledge the removal of this defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F1:2F28:B086:50F7:1B16:3C64:3C5A (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed that claim, as it was unsourced in the article. An (admittedly quick) review of sources does not show sourcing sufficient to make the claim of someone being a conspiracy theorist in a WP:BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Abdulrahman El Bahnasawy
There have been a flurry of POV edits by new editors at the article in recent weeks. I'm tempted to just cut it back to where it stood before the disruption (i.e. this version). Whatever the outcome, the lead is completely inappropriate.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Frank Furedi
Should a quote from an op-ed piece in a deprecated source (RT) be used in this article about Frank Furedi? Seems to fail on both WP:RS and notability grounds. Another set of eyes would be appreciated. - Amigao (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

George Watsky
He also did a track with The Palmer Squares - I'm dope from their Album Planet of the Shapes whom are not among Watsky's associated acts on his wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.145.209.245 (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Mrtarkin edits to BLP pages
I wanted to draw the attention of editors here to User:Mrtarkin, whose edits are almost exclusively to BLP articles (particularly those relevant to US politics and media of the last 30 years). In my view, a great many of their edits have as sole purpose to bring emphasis to negative aspects of the subject's history, regardless of encyclopedic merit. Many (but not all) of the user's edits have been reverted, and there have been several messages left on their talk-page, but they haven't engaged in discussion. I am bringing this to the attention of this noticeboard in the hopes that people will check that my impression of their edits is accurate and, if so, for consideration of appropriate next steps. --JBL (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I see that they have now been blocked by . It might still be worthwhile for BLP-sensitive editors to look over their live edits to double-check. --JBL (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Ian Urbina
Ian Urbina Majority of sources in article are duplicate references to the website of the person in question, or articles written by the person in question. Other sources don't show or reflect the information implicated by the citation mark. Causing into question Wikipedia's three core content policies: NPOV, V, and NOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1C03:3918:A200:D806:E266:9C0C:7244 (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I am not really sure what this is saying. I'll say that a YouTube video critical of Urbina was just published and is getting a bit of internet attention, so some eyes on this article might be a good idea. Firefangledfeathers 22:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Claims based on the YouTube video have been repeatedly added to the article; whether or not they are true, it's definitely not a suitable source for a BLP. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is now semi-protected for one week. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

David Miller (sociologist)
There are a number of contentious discussions on the talk page of the above article, which would benefit from un-involved eyes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The usage of Electronic Intifada which is red in WP:RSP is quite troubling someone should remove this Shrike (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. If it is WP:DUE, then it will be covered in other, more reliable, sources, just as his interview with Electronic Intifada is earlier in that section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added a secondary source detailing the report's conclusions. The report itself is currently only available at the Electronic Intifada website and cannot be linked to in WP.Selfstudier (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The report has now been made available by Jewish Voice for Labour. So absent a challenge to these two sources, I think this issue is dealt with, at least ftb.Selfstudier (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is that none of these sources have the reliability to state that the "leaked report" is in any way legitimate. We should be careful using leaked documents when independent reliable sources have not spoken to their veracity. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We've now got a link to the primary source as well. Not sure why we would flout rules on BLP like this...  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:07, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A primary source of a leaked document, which no reliable source has said is real. I agree, the flouting of BLP policy here is sub-par. The article is under 1RR so I have not reverted, as the BLP issue is not bad enough where I am willing to invoke BLP to break 1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several open contentious discussions on the talk page in addition to the question of sourcing this particular claim (I agree with and  that current sourcing is problematic), so if that were resolved I would still invited un-involved eyes to help out. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Eyes are always welcome. I have also suggested at RSN in response to your other post there that the simplest thing might be to initiate RSN discussions re MEMO and JVL specifically and what they are being used as sources for. It's a little confusing to have similar discussion at two different boards.Selfstudier (talk) 12:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

BLPs should only have top notch sources, especially for controversial content (and controversial BLPs). If it's not academic or top-rated news, it's out. No MEMO, no EI, and no advocacy orgs or think tanks at all. If the thing you want to source is only available through of one these substandard sources, then it just doesn't get covered in a Wikipedia BLP. This question shouldn't even need to be asked, as global consensus is well established and it's a DS area several times over. Levivich 13:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Would that include the Jewish Chronicle as well?Selfstudier (talk) 13:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly. I'm not familiar enough with it to know if that's considered by other RS to be actual journalism or advocacy-dressed-in-newsprint. Unless RSN has already tackled that one (I haven't checked), it might be worth an RSN thread. But IMO when the subject is a white western male professor, if it's not in like the New York Times or something like that, it's not even worth summarizing in the encyclopedia. This isn't an undercovered topic or something where we need to go any lower than the top shelf. This is the same way in which I feel that for PIA history (not current events), we shouldn't be looking at anything other than academia (no journalism at all, not even the New York Times). If top-shelf is available for a super-mainstream topic (like white men and white men's history) then don't go lower than top-shelf, is my view. Not talking about this specific article, but I find usually when people want to cite something below top shelf, it's to make a point that can't be found on the top shelf, but if it can't be found (like this leaked report), there's probably a good reason. Levivich 13:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what you’re meaning by “top shelf”. I think there might be an ENGVAR confusion. In the UK it usually means porn magazines. I’m guess that’s not what you mean. DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "Highest quality". Oxford University Press, etc. See User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability. Levivich 13:43, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess top drawer. The "reason" atm is that it's all "recent" so yes, we could argue that we ought to wait until more sources are available (it is being actively discussed in the wild and by experts in the relevant area but there is objection to tweets and such even from experts). That's valid, however, this entire article has been the subject of rather controversial editing for some time now, at one point I stepped back from it entirely because of that. The current material goes some way to correcting the overall tenor of this article, which at one point read like one long unproven antisemitism allegation. If you put to me the proposition that only sources that are at RSP and are entirely green should be used, I would go along with that.Selfstudier (talk) 13:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My standard for controversial BLP recent events would be "paper-of-record". (So NYT, Le Monde, etc.). The problem with green at RSP is that the best sources aren't listed (academic journals, university presses, etc.). "Listed green or obviously would be green if listed" might be a workable standard? But yes that's what I mean by "top shelf" (funny, to these American ears, the "top drawer" is the sock drawer, which is definitely not where we want to look for sources! 😂) Levivich 13:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not as funny as getting your RS from the “top shelf” for British ears. someone needs to add to Top shelf. DeCausa (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, the current discussion is "recent" but I don't think you mean that is OK to use less than top drawer if it is "not recent", or do you? The subject of the article is controversial, no question about that and so are the recent events around him. If we follow the proposition, it means all cites to the Jewish Chronicle are out, what do you say, Bob?Selfstudier (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've now looked at RSP and RSN and see that The Jewish Chronicle is listed green (with caveat about bias) at RSP based on a March 2021 RFC. So I think that consensus needs to be respected until/unless it changes. Whether it's "actual journalism or advocacy-dressed-in-newsprint" has been answered by the community, and the answer is green (actual journalism). Levivich 15:16, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Recanting. There is a recent case where a very active editor at that article was sanctioned for breaching a topic ban (british politics) and this article clearly falls within the JC caveat on that basis so if all the non "top drawer" go out, so does that one. EDIT:I should give a link I guessSelfstudier (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Isn't a QCs legal report commissioned by the University of Bristol as reliable as you can get? Unfortunately, this also makes it original, and there are only two secondary sources: the EI and Jewish Voice for Labour which have published it. I doubt if the BBC, Guardian or any of the MSM will publish because its findings may clash with their editorial stance on this subject. However, I'm aware of a FOI request for the QCs report to be officially released, but once again it might only get distributed in the alternative media.--Andromedean (talk) 14:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Right now, as a leaked document only mentioned by unreliable sources, it is not reliable at all. There is no way to verify it is the actual document. If it is officially released and not covered in reliable, secondary sources, then it is not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Technically, it is not verifiable by strict application of Wiki rules, I pointed that out myself previously and was careful to refer to it as "claimed" and drew no conclusions from it myself. However I have argued for WP:COMMON. IMO tweets by experts making reference to this report, experts who would have every reason to cast doubt on its authenticity along with the amount of off wiki debate, as well as the simple making available of the download, strongly suggests that the document is for real and imo is a necessary balance to all of the unproven antisemitism allegations constantly referred to in our article. Still, the wishes of the community are the final arbiter.Selfstudier (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the sourcing should be held to a much higher standard across the entire article. For instance Another of Miller's websites, Neocon Europe, hosted material written by Kevin MacDonald, an American evolutionary psychologist who appeared as a witness for David Irving in his unsuccessful libel claim against Penguin Books and Deborah Lipstadt. Miller said he removed MacDonald's statements in November 2009, "as soon as I became aware that they had been posted on the site". In December 2009, Miller said: "Macdonald has been repeatedly and rightly (in our view) accused of racism. Moreover, the statements expressed core essentialist anti-semitic/racist ideas. This material should not have been posted and is in no way endorsed by this site. I apologise for, and deeply regret, this error." is incredibly poorly sourced, to two blogs and an opinion piece. That whole paragraph should be dropped. Really, the article needs going over and sources need to be audited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if there wasn't questions over the authenticity of this document, it's not actually a great source. For BLPs, WP:BLPPRIMARY strongly discourages the use of primary sourcess like this. While it's not a court document, IMO it should be treated as one which means its use isn't just discouraged, its forbidden. As I understand it, the information of concern here arguably put the subject in a more positive light than what is already in our article and doesn't really concern other living persons but we shouldn't ignore BLP policy just because the information is positive about living persons. Even if we but aside the BLP issues, a WP:PRIMARY source still tends not to be the best source to use. We much prefer secondary source coverage of primary sources. It helps put the information in sufficient context, reduces the chance editor will misinterpret or misunderstand something or engage in WP:OR and also reduced WP:UNDUE weight concerns. This is especially the case for a primary source of the sort which was only intended for a specific audience and specific purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The reluctance of the MSM to report on this second letter, reminds me of the time The Union of Orthodox Hebrew Congregations wrote a letter defending Jeremy Corbyn, and condemning other Jewish groups for their hostile view of him. This was a very important story which demonstrated there were some religious Jewish communities which held a completely different view to that being reported on the MSM. Only one media outlet initially reported this, which didn't have a good reputation for accuracy, and was perhaps rightly deemed unreliable on Wikipedia RSN. However another low circulation and very unreliable source, but one judged to be reliable to Wikipedia, attempted to denounce the letter; although, later they admitted it was genuine. No MSM to my knowledge covered this story, and I doubt if many people had heard of it, but this wasn't due to its lack of importance. The episode was repeated the following year in 2019 just before the general election, the MSM steered well away, again. The question is why did MSM ignore this? I have no doubt it would have countered the narrative they wanted to portray. --Andromedean (talk) 09:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not a relevant question for WP per WP:RGW and WP:NOTAFORUM. We follow the WP:RS. That’s it. DeCausa (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are not any questions over authenticity outside of here, it is true that the document is technically unverifiable but there are two secondary sources summarizing the content and opinions about them are being sought in the RSN discussion of this, the primary in this case is for verification of the secondary if we can put it like that. As an aside, Byline Times is an OK source and the writer of the article mentioned is an expert academic in the subject matter but that's not the main issue here. Nor can we do much about the debatable behavior of the MSM.Selfstudier (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Dave Rich has now written (rather than tweeted) about the leaked report but has unfortunately decided to do it in the JC. So there is now an expert opinion in a "reliable"source talking about the report.Selfstudier (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion piece though, clearly marked as such (even in the URL). Levivich 19:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe I just said that, "expert opinion". I wl'd him. I can't bring myself to cite the JC, though. I'll leave that to someone else.Selfstudier (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think expert opinion is a good source for contentious claims in a BLP. I am enjoying the irony though :-) Levivich 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it to reduce the concern about the leaked report verifiability. I doubt that fellow would be speaking about it if he didn't think it was for real. This one is going to run and run anyway. Papers will be written, demands will be made, petitions will fly.Selfstudier (talk) 20:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Dave Rich says "This is the second QC’s report to be leaked and it exonerates Miller just as the first did" which is incorrect because the QC makes it clear that article 10(1) of the ECHR includes restrictions on expression, such as personal abuse for example. Andromedean (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In that article, Dave Rich also implies that the Jerusalem Declaration doesn't allow for coded language, yet paragraph A4 covers this with examples "Antisemitism can be direct or indirect, explicit or coded. For example....". So he doesn't seem to be an 'antisemitism expert in my view.--Andromedean (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We can safely assume that he is on the other side of the fence (and he writes for the JC), nevertheless he is thought of as an expert so his opinions have a certain weight.Selfstudier (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Expert isn't a rank, though. He has a PhD in sociology so I could see his self-published blog counting as WP:EXPERTSPS for a sociology issue, but I don't understand how that applies to this opinion piece about another living person. What does this have to do with sociology? Levivich 15:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking at cross purposes. Dave Rich is the expert on antisemitism. Selfstudier (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rich is undoubtedly an expert in antisemitism. He works for the Community Security Trust, the main body monitoring and combating antisemitism in the UK, and has a PhD, in history, on British left-wing antisemitism. (His supervisor was one of the authors of the Jerusalem Declaration.) His opinion piece, used with attribution, might therefore be a good and due source on the question of Miller's antisemitism, but it is not a good source on the content and veracity of a leaked document or for facts about how universities process disciplinary issues. His opinion piece is primarily about the value of competing antisemitism definitions, rather than actually about Rich's case. I don't think it adds anything here, and I still think JVL and other sources proposed so far are unreliable. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The only part of Rich that is of interest here is the fact he speaks about the report as a thing that's out there, no queries about authenticity. The best place to discuss reliability of specific sources is in the other discussion/RSN.Selfstudier (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Justin Chart Wikipedia
Another editor persistently inserts birth date for Justin Chart as 1959/1960. I spoke with Justin Chart he informed me that his date of birth is 1960. What do we need to provide to stop this? Mr. Chart knows when he was born.

Also, another editor removed discography from the page. Every item in the discography was linked to Spotify, where the items are clearly available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akooseo (talk • contribs) 17:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * See Reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The age was sourced to a reliable source that only provided his age, but not his birth date or year. If you have a reliable source for the particular date or year, then you should provide that. Also, if you have some type of relation or connection to the article subject, then you need to follow the conflict of interest policies, and should probably not be editing the page at all, especially not to insert promotional edits such as this. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Akooseo, to add to this: Google search is not a reliable source. – NJD-DE (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Green new deal insertions -- UNDUE?
Could editors have a look at Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, the BLPs of two Nobel Laureate economists, where isolated 2019 media mentions of their favorable comments about the Green New Deal have been added, reverted as UNDUE and then readded to their biographies? The Green New Deal initiative failed to gain traction at the time of its introduction by a faction of the Democratic party, which is currently pursuing other environmental policy initiatives that do not use that name or all of the associated program. These BLP mentions appear to tag these two economists with undefined left-leaning agendas or biases related to the Green New Deal, which is currently used by right-wing media as pejorative tag on left-leaning public figures. The now-readded content received no support on the article talk page but was reinserted in the articles.There is no valid sourcing for article text that states they currently support the Green New Deal. SPECIFICO talk 18:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC) Neither of these economists is particularly noted for work on environmental issues, and if they have written on the subject a more detailed or specific description of their work would be more appropriate. These mentions appear to be an effort to tag them as far-left ideologues whose more significant work should be deprecated. SPECIFICO talk 22:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just your point of view (POV). Most Democratic voters support the Green New Deal.--,.
 * Paul Krugman--,, ,.
 * Joseph Stiglitz--,,,. --Tobby72 (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Green new deal is a specific legislative proposal that lived and died several years ago. General statements about "green" policies or related issues do not verify the insinuation of "green new deal", which has been used by right wing media and Republican politicians as a general term of disparagement. If there are sources that will support specific content about either of these economists' research or conclusions on environmental issues, that would be valid article content. But tagging them based on cherrypicked references out ot context is not valid BLP content.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Kent (author)
This article talk page could do with some input - the article is largely an autobiography (or written by someone with an admitted very close relationship to the subject) - they now wish to remove the tag which highlights this.  ℕ  ℱ  14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The Matrix Resurrections
As the release date of this movie approaches, this article is seeing an escalation in edits that deliberately misgender the Wachowskis. I am posting here in the hopes of avoiding semi-protection, as many IPs are making constructive edits and there will certainly be new information pouring into the article in the coming days/weeks, and also because I have been claiming the BLP 3RR exemption to revert misgendering edits. Firefangledfeathers 18:34, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * After a couple of IP blocks, the vandalism seems to have stopped for now. I've added the article to my watchlist, too. clpo13(talk) 19:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am grateful. Firefangledfeathers 19:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Anna Biller
I am trying to add information to this filmmaker's page for a school project, but her filmography isn't showing up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alprtor (talk • contribs) 23:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Fixed! The table was missing the end tag. Woodroar (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Simon Denyer


This is a new, well-sourced, but very negative biography of a living person, and should be checked further. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Person is most notable for recent scandal and not much else is written about him. I only know of Denyer because of the scandal. I am hoping other people can expand that article over time.ParallaxVision222 (talk) 23:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotta love Wikipedians, doing their damndest to ensure the world never forgets that a person was once accused of sexual misconduct, and once had a professional misstep regarding one article. You should all be very proud. And for people who have trouble recognizing, this is sarcasm. What is not sarcasm is that this is a terrible article unworthy of being in an encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't call WP:DAILYBEAST or Jezebel (website) exactly well sourced. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requested re mentioning a criminal charge in a section header
Eric Zemmour is a candidate for the French presidency. He is a journalist and media pundit, and some of his comments over the years have resulted in criminal charges and arrest or trial in half a dozen cases for defamation, incitement, and various other charges, almost all resulting in acquittal. A discussion is taking place about whether words like defamation or incitement may be used in a subsection header to identify a case where he was charged with that crime, and subsequently found innocent. Your opinion would be welcome at Talk:Éric Zemmour. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 23:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Paula [sic] Denyer and gender identification


I am escalating this here because it is a matter of gender identification, which creates a critical issue regarding the subject of the article.

The Denyer article had been stable based on multiple sources stating Denyer identifies as female. A single podcast, released in 2021, is being used by an editor to support the claim that Denyer no longer identifies as female. Edits have included pronoun changes and changes of first name back to a masculine form. I'm looking for guidance from the community on how to proceed here:
 * 1) Does the podcast, done by Vikki Petraitis for Spotify, qualify as a reliable source?
 * 2) Does the podcast contain clear statements that the subject no longer identifies as female? Skimming an article is one thing, but listening to a 17-minute podcast is another. (I have asked the original editor for timestamps.)

Assistance from the broader community is appreciated, since the article either needs restored or needs an expedited move to the new (old) name. —C.Fred (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For something like this we clearly need a better source IMO. The only case where I can see the podcast being enough would be if it contains an interview with the subject where they clearly stated their gender identity. In that case, the source would be sufficient, otherwise no. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I reverted since I also think the correct course of action under BLP is to keep it with the gender identity we sufficient sourcing for unless we have consensus the other sourcing is sufficient. While neither solution is completely neutral in terms of potential harm, IMO especially given our articles are often going to be out if date, it's better to keep it at the older one which may not reflect their current gender identity but we can be confident it was their gender identity at that time; rather than change it to a gender identity which may be their current gender identity but we have insufficient sourcing to be sure. Nil Einne (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking into this more [//searchingforsarah.com/credits/] [//searchingforsarah.com/credits/] I think the podcast is clearly a WP:SPS at least for anything coming from Vikki Petraitis, so per WP:BLPSPS can only really be used for content about Petraitis. While it's published via Spotify, AFAIK Spotify generally does not exert much editorial control over the content they publish beyond deciding whether to work with and trust the producer of said content. Nil Einne (talk)
 * BTW the editor reverted me again which I reverted back. They did post to the talk page, but as this is a BLP matter I don't think we can just leave it at the editor's preferred version while we discuss. I've warned them for BLP and they're actually past 3RR by my count anyway (but I didn't warn them on that since I didn't want to overwhelm them and I considered the BLP issue more urgent than edit warring), but as a new editor I'd prefer we don't block them. So it would be good if other editors could join in. Nil Einne (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Greg Austin (American football)
The article as repeated references in it to someone named "David" that do not match the biography of the subject of this article. The links do not match the citations to which they are appended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.231.153 (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I replaced all the uses of 'David' with 'Austin' or just 'he'. I am not yet sure what you mean with the link/citation matching issue. Firefangledfeathers 20:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Brian Kemp – Attributed statement from a Yale University Press book
There is a dispute on the Brian Kemp article over whether the body of the article should include attributed statements from Election Meltdown: Dirty Tricks, Distrust, and the Threat to American Democracy by Rick L. Hasen (Yale University Press, 2020):


 * Election law expert Rick L. Hasen described Kemp as "perhaps the most incompetent state chief elections officer" in the 2018 election year, pointing to a number of actions that jeopardized Georgia's election security and made it harder for eligible Georgia voters to vote. Hasen writes that it was "hard to tell" which of Kemp's "actions were due to incompetence and which were attempted suppression."

These two sentences were lodged in a section of Kemp's article on accusations that Kemp engaged in voter suppression in Georgia's gubernatorial election, as well as jeopardized the security of the election by among other things exposing the personal voter data of millions. It's been removed by another editor on the basis that the text above is a BLP violation. For what it's worth, the book is peer-reviewed, the author is a law professor who is known for his expertise in election law, and the book covers Georgia's gubernatorial election at great length in the book (the statements are not just off-hand remarks) alongside other problematic elections (overseen by both Democrats and Republicans). I do not see why this is a BLP violation. It's an attributed statement from one of the highest-quality sources (a peer-reviewed monograph authored by a recognized expert in a top tier press). It's the kind of content that Wikipedia articles should have more of. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It adds nothing to the article when exactly what how he is accused of suppressing voters is already described, therefore calling him "incompetent" two times in two sentences is unnecessary and the insult is just a BLP violation, because these claims of incompetence were not repeated in other reliable sources, and Hasen was not cited anywhere else for this quote. Two other political scientists were already cited in that paragraph, so adding a third for a contentious claim is not needed. Bill Williams 04:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That sounds rather backward.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 04:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * the quote is cited literally no where else on google besides Wikipedia and his own book, so how is it notable for the article? Bill Williams 04:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think WEIGHT would have to come into play here. That one person said this doesn't mean much other than we can WP:V they said it.  Is it due is quite another. How is this being used in the Wiki BLP?  Is this material supporting a paragraph or is this included because it's a nice damning quote that is otherwise out of context?  If it's due in context it would be better to summarize the intent rather than include the quote.  If no other sources are quoting this then we shouldn't either.  Springee (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Given that it's an academic book by an expert, it seems worth citing in some fashion. There's room to tweak precisely what we say to get a concise summary of the book's main points about Kemp's actions (ie. we may not need to use that exact quote), but removing it entirely is too much.  I'm seeing how the source itself can be considered undue.  It's a peer-reviewed book, on the precise focus of the subsection, from an expert in the topic, discussing the topic of the article in that context at length, on a subject that many other sources plainly also consider broadly significant - if that is undue, what on earth would be due? It seems to me that the quote is what has people's hackles up, but the precise quote isn't really the point and can be reasonably paraphrased. The broad point that Kemp's competence has been questioned is certainly well-cited, and this is a reasonable source to paraphrase to cover that aspect - though you could also add additional sources to avoid the focus on one in particular, if you wanted. --Aquillion (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "if that is undue, what on earth would be due" this is clearly undue because nobody has used this quote across the entirety of Google besides the author himself and Wikipedia, showing how it is not at all notable. All of those articles accusing Kemp of being "incompetent" are opinion pieces or petitions, and you can find opinion pieces or petitions insulting every politician in existence, but that does not mean we should insult them on Wikipedia. "The broad point that Kemp's competence has been questioned" is not something reliable sources state most of the time, only a few occassional references like this one author, or opinion pieces that have no reason to be in the article. Bill Williams 06:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two reasons an analysis can be WP:DUE: First, because it has wide secondary coverage; or second, because it is from a high-quality WP:RS written by an established expert and doesn't seem to be WP:EXCEPTIONAL or fringe. It isn't necessary for both to apply, especially since this is not a mere opinion source. Lots of politicians have people saying they're incompetent, surely; few of them have election law experts raising questions about their competence in a peer-reviewed work, and when that happens it's reasonable to give it at least a mention. Beyond that, as I said, we can paraphrase to avoid the quote if you don't feel the specific wording is noteworthy. But the book itself has reasonable amounts of secondary coverage for something so recent, eg  and there is substantial secondary non-opinion and high-quality coverage that the opinion that Kemp's handling of 2018 election security raises potential concerns about his competence is noteworthy, eg., at least to the point where it's hard to argue that his opinion is so unusual or out-there as to be fringe. When a particular interpretation is widespread and has secondary coverage, it is reasonable to cite a high-quality source for it, with attribution; and this is a high-quality source. We're talking about a brief sentence or two in the body, not an entire paragraph - I think it's a hard push to argue that a source of this quality, saying something that many other sources have covered, is undue to mention at all. I can sympathize somewhat with your allergic reaction to such a sharply-worded quote; I do think that there is sometimes a problem with people pulling out the most "incisive" quotes from a source and using them for their sharpness rather than the precise significance of the words - see WP:QUOTES, which talks about the problem a bit. But the answer to that is to paraphrase the broadly-important points in a more neutral tone, not to try and remove the entire source (otherwise, what, is your argument that we can only use sources that have been quoted elsewhere, ever, fullstop?) Trying to entirely remove a reasonably high-quality source and the sentence or two summarizing it is an overreach, since at that point you can't just talk about the quote, you have to somehow argue that the entire source, and everything that Hasen has to say about Kemp's role in the election there, is useless, fringe-y, or undue.  I'm not seeing any real argument for that. --Aquillion (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote adds nothing to the article besides calling Kemp incompetent, which is a personal attack that is not notable when the book is rarely cited elsewhere on the internet, and the direct quote of the personal attack from the book is repeated nowhere on the internet. How do readers benefit from this direct quote when two experts are already quoted on their opinion without ad hominem attacks, and the reasons for their accusations are already listed in the same paragraph? Bill Williams 15:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Attempts to exclude material published in peer-reviewed academic work are highly damaging to the encyclopedia. This is of course exactly the kind of material we should be using.  The idea that it's a BLP violation is preposterous and has no basis in our policies.  The comment just above mine, referring to "opinion pieces or petitions", shows how unhinged some of the arguments in this section are; in case you missed it, the material in question isn't "opinion pieces or petitions" but rather peer-reviewed academic work. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I may not be an expert on BLP, but I am a living person who you just called "unhinged" without justification. Maybe address what I actually said instead of personally attacking me? What I stated was in response to Aquillion posting google searches of opinion articles and petitions to show that other sources call Kemp incompetent. You personally attacked me for saying something perfectly accurate, because "in case you missed it", Aquillion literally linked "opinion pieces or petitions". That is irrelevant to the main point, which is relating to the article, and I said that the quote  personally insults a living person with a direct quote that is not repeated anywhere on the entire internet, so how is it acceptable to use that insult in the article and how is it even notable at all? What does this add when two experts are already quoted on the issue in the paragraph without an ad hominem attack? Bill Williams 15:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The notion that Wikipedia cannot include direct quotations from academic publications unless the exact quotation has been covered on CNN or whatever is completely inane. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have provided zero justification for adding a personal attack to the biography of a living person other than "this one writer said it one time". Because it has not been "covered on CNN or whatever" it is not notable in the slightest, and adds nothing to benefit the reader's understanding. There are literally thousands of sources that covered this, so why choose that one specific quote that was not repeated elsewhere? An actual description of Kemp's actions and two expert opinions is already provided, so the personal attack is just unnecessary. Bill Williams 15:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are most definitely not thousands of academic publications on the Georgia 2018 gubernatorial election. The peer-reviewed book that you scrubbed from the page is possibly the single-most extensive treatment of the election. There is no personal attack in the source. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * BLP is not about "insults". It is to prevent defamation. The content is well-sourced and on-topic. There is no defamation.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This isn't an RSN question, of course this book is a reliable source. It is a WP:DUE question, which should be handled at the article's talk page (or WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN), not at RSN. Levivich 15:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is WP:BLPN. Do you mean this should be handled here, or elsewhere? Jehochman Talk 16:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ha, I'm an idiot with too many browser windows open :-) Levivich 16:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am arguing that this is a BLP violation because it is an UNDUE insult to Kemp, calling him "incompetent" two sentences in a row in a direct quote that is repeated nowhere else on the internet. Two expert opinions and a description of Kemp's actions are already given in the article, so adding another expert who simply insults him and actually casts doubt on the claims that Kemp suppressed voters by saying it could have just been "incompetence" is misleading to readers and not beneficial to anyone. Bill Williams 02:04, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Would it be a BLP violation to add a quote from the same book about Brenda Snipes, a Democratic politician who oversees elections in Broward County, to her article: "A retired educator and registered Democrat, Snipes was probably the most incompetent election administrator in a large jurisdiction in the United States... [Snipes] had a history of poor performance... she had improperly destroyed ballots, left measures off the ballot, delayed reporting voting results, and mixed up provisional ballots with regular ones."? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would definitely be unnecessary to call her incompetent like that, as a description of precisely what she did, and her "history of poor performance" is certainly preferable to personally insulting her by calling her "incompetent", which provides no benefit to readers. Bill Williams 02:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I see nothing close to a BLP violation in having an attributed statement sourced to a peer-reviewed publication by an expert on election law and management remarking on the competence of election management and/or possible voter suppression. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You're correct, in that, if it violates UNDUE then it's a violation of BLP. That doesn't necessarily mean BLPN is the best place to work it out. Here, we tend to specialize more in blatant BLP violation, whereas UNDUE is part of NPOV and the specifics are covered under that policy. BLP just says we need to adhere to that and the other policies. So in this case NPOVN may be the better place, where people specialize in that particular aspect of policy. (Not that I would turn anyone away, as I think anyone is welcome to bring their concerns here, but you might find it more helpful over there.)


 * That said, if you go there with the same rationale you're using here, you will likely be out of gas fast. First, calling someone incompetent is not always an insult. Sometime people really are incompetent ... at least most people are for certain things. For example, I have certain talents and abilities, but cooking isn't one of them. You could most certainly say I'm incompetent in the kitchen. I can talk lasers with Townes and gravity with Einstein, have always been a whiz in English, but am totally incompetent when it comes to higher math. (I think the big problem is most people versed in higher math are incompetent in explaining it in English.) Sometimes an adjective is just an adjective.


 * The bigger problem you are going to have is you should really get a good understanding of due weight before trying to argue that point. You're outta gas on RS. It's common and even a good thing to criticize politicians (on both sides of the aisle), so you're really outta gas on calling this any kind of slander or libel. That really leaves NPOV. You may very well be right, and it may be undue, but the problem is that due weight is not always so clear-cut, black and white. Weight is a grey area that really needs to be sorted out by a preponderance of reliable sources, and this is why it is often better discussed on the article's talk page, or at a place where they specialize in that policy. Are we just cherrypicking these quotes, or are we summarizing the source? Are we giving a disproportionate amount of space to them as opposed to everything else? These are question you should answer. I hope that helps, and good luck in your quest. Zaereth (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the help, and you are correct that it is a reliable source referring to her this way, and that incompetence can simply be an adjective to describe actions accurately without personally insulting someone. But in this case, reliably sources almost never call Kemp "incompetent", only opinion articles, and still not nearly as often as accurately describing his actions specifically, or generally accusing him of voter suppression, both of which are already in the article with two experts' opinions as well. And again, this precise quote is not repeated anywhere on the internet, and it does not benefit readers' understanding of the subject, since it casts doubts on claims of voter suppression by saying it may have just been Kemp's "incompetence" in one sentence after calling Kemp incompetent in another. Bill Williams 03:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And that is what makes it an NPOV issue. In both scientific theory and expository writing, the thing we call "truth" exists in two parts, called fact and opinion. Facts are observable and, therefore, recordable phenomena, and as such they are not bound by any rules of NPOV. But facts without theories to tie them all together are nothing, so we have to add in some opinions as well. But wherever there is an opinion, there is an opposing opinion, and NPOV is all about giving those opinions (theories, conclusions, etc...) their due weight and not a syllable more. In Wikipedia, we determine that by weighing the sources against one another and trying to apportion everything accordingly. That's not easy to do. I don't know where the answer lies. What I do know is, whether you're right or wrong, neither or both, or something else entirely, this is the path you need to explore. Zaereth (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yeah the idea this is a BLP issue is a non-starter. Accusations of voter suppression were widespread. This is one of the highest quality types of sources we have. So its certainly reliable, its relevant to the section in the article, and the suggestion a peer-reviewed piece written by an expert in the very thing its discussing is a BLP violation with multiple allegations out there? Utter nonsense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The "utter nonsense" you are referring to is completely irrelevant to anything this discussion is about. I am referring to the quote calling Kemp "incompetent" twice in a row, which is an unnecessary personal attack that actually discredits voter suppression allegations by implying it was simply "incompetence". Multiple experts and a detailed description of voter suppression allegations are already in the article, while having this quote adds nothing, and this quote is repeated literally nowhere on the internet, as I have stated multiple times, and it does not benefit readers whatsoever. Bill Williams 15:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * A reasonable related question here is, taking for granted the view is DUE, are the specific quotes DUE? At least some editors seem to seek out quotes that appear to be, in my limited legalese, more prejudicial than probative.  This is a case where the reasons why Hasen thinks Kemp did a bad job has more encyclopedic value than Hasen's possibly biased view that Kemp is 'the most incompetent' etc.  Loading up any BLP with such value laden terms, even if they come from someone reported to be an expert, makes it look like the objective of the Wikipedia editors is to tell the readers they are supposed to hate the person rather than presenting the evidence that the person did a bad job.  A consensus here that the Hasen's views have weight should not be seen as consensus that we should include the quotes as proposed.  An impartial summary of the reasons would make for a better article.  Springee (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a very valid concern, in my opinion. Quotes are great things, but too often they are taken out of context to imply a meaning otherwise not intended, and this isn't always done intentionally or consciously. It's just extremely easy to see something through our own rose-colored glasses and single it out. That's why I usually prefer to let the secondary sources single out the quotes, for the most part. For example, I think a few well-placed quotes can be helpful in a historical article, such as dogfighting. Most of the quotes I added to that article originally came from pilots who wrote books about their war experiences, but those wouldn't generally be considered reliable sources of their own accord, so rather than quote from such books myself, the quotes I found mostly came from reliable secondary-sources on the subject. I just let them pick out quotes they, as experts, deemed relevant ... with the exception of the Red Baron. (You can't have an article about dogfighting without a description of the Red Baron's most famous battle.) Since I haven't seen the source in question, I don't know if these are direct quotes from the source, or quotes from someone else that were then used by the source. I had assumed the latter, but maybe I'm wrong. But that leads to the question, are these cherrypicked or do they summarize the gist of what the source is saying? Zaereth (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Junior Galette
This article has been plagued by problems for a long time, including COI editing; I just reverted one of those edits. Like so many BLPs, the article is problematic precisely because it is poor quality, somewhat odd considering that, well, it's football. I would like to ask one of you sports editors to take this article and source it, improve it, etc., if only to establish a kind of baseline that we can revert to if further disruption takes place. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Sidney Cooke


While obviously a criminal convicted of various offences including a single count of manslaughter, significant BLPCRIME issues, in particular calling him a serial killer and his guilt of a murder he has not been charged with. 2A00:23C6:883:8F00:144F:B3ED:81DA:8B6F (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Nicole Simone
An article for Nicole Simone was created back in 2020 via AfC by a who has clearly stated their COI as a friend of Simone's, see archived diffs of their talkpage. There appears to be an off-wiki dispute regarding animal cruelty allegations at a rescue charity, "Redemption Paws", that Simone runs, which have been discussed on a self-published blog https://redemptionflaws.wordpress.com/. Anonymous users are engaging in edit warring to try to add these allegations to the article cited to this blog. A brand new user, has created a COIN post as well as a malformed AfD request. Can people keep an eye on the situation? Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have no idea why this website continues to be brought up. I did not mention it and it's existence is of no relevance to the discussion of 's conflict of interest. In an interest in preserving the credibility of Wikipedia I think this conflict of interest, and what seems like obvious promotion as the reason this article has been created is something that needs to be addressed. I will be emailing more concrete evidence as to prove the conflict of interest to the appropriate address in order to preserve the privacy of.

I do not appreciate your attack on my post as "malformed", I joined Wikipedia to address this conflict of interest concern which I believe is very valid, but this is the first time I have used this process. If you could refrain from attacks or judgement in this discussion I would appreciate it. I have stuck to the facts here and so should you. NoSpamming (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It wasn't an attempt to attack you, "malformed" was just an accurate technical description of the post. There is a very specific format for Articles for Deletion that should be followed (most advanced users have tools enabled to create this format automatically), but I can understand why a brand new user would not be aware of that. How did you become aware of Nicole Simone and the Conflict of Interest? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have corrected and completed the AfD process for this person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your language I suppose. I tried to initiate a discussion on the talk page about this but refused to engage, assumed I had something to do with the website in question (I don not), attacked me and he repeatedly deleted the discussion. This is what led me to Propose it for deletion and flag it for conflict of interest. I'm not sure I understand why this was approved in the first place if his conflict of interest was obviously stated then. If he has received payment from Nicole for his web services, even if he wasn't paid directly to create this article it really doesn't look good. I know for a fact that also is responsible for creating her IMDB page. Why have rules against COI if it's actually just allowed?

I have a personal connection to Nicole which I would rather not disclose, I have no personal ill will against her but I have concerns about her suppression of criticism and using her marketing background (through Greg) to take advantage of Wikipedia for promotion. It just doesn't reflect reality of the notability of redemption paws vs the notability of Nicole and her self funded music and acting exploits. As I said on the talk page I think it would be much more appropriate to just have an article about Redemption Paws, although one not written by an associate of Nicole. NoSpamming (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your attempt to AfD the article could be seen as a disruptive way to address the COI situation. Especially since you also have a COI. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a single-purpose account. Have you read WP:BOOMERANG? Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 02:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

General Bipin Rawat's caste
Question Can these sources presented on the talk page be used for this BLP content about General Bipin Rawat's caste?       

Details: (summary of discussion at Talk:Bipin_Rawat)

General Bipin Rawat (RIP) recently died. Couple of users are adding controversial caste information, even though Rawat has (to my knowledge) not self identified his caste. Biographies of living persons Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality are applicable here. These two links above explain the higher bar needed for such information. These bars are not met. Castes are part of General sanctions/South Asian social groups

Some one added caste information. After his death some tabloid sources picked them up from Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR. Arunib had removed this caste info, RS6784 had restored this into article without generating a consensus about sourcing. Among the 2 WP:TOI links in this diff Special:Diff/1059406602, the first one from 2016 does not even mention the caste information. The second WP:TOI link appears to be a mirror. Jagran and WP:TOI are not reliable sources. Ideally Military history books or the subject's biography should be referred. On top of all these points, these unreliable sources are presenting conflicting information. TimesofIndia (A wiki mirror in this case) says Garhwali Rajput. India.com says "Rawat Rajput". Bharattimes says "Chauhan Rajput". It is obvious that these unreliable sources are making speculations about rawat's caste .Rawat has not self identified with the Rajputs. Like many Indians, he might be against Caste system. Till a reliable source becomes available nothing should should be added. Until then Wikipedia should not take sides into this caste dispute among these newspapers. The article is currently on the mainpage and such dubious information cannot be put into the article. Venkat TL (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The page is protected right now, but consensus must be obtained before inserting contentious matters like caste into the article per WP:BDP and WP:BLPRESTORE. Consensus can be obtained on the article talk page through an WP:RFC. I myself cannot evaluate the reliability of the sources you presented given my scant knowledge on Indian media. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP still apply on Bipin Rawat as he died recently. I agree that these sources are insufficient for the addition of a 'caste' which has to comply with WP:BLPCAT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

List of converts...
Some 'religious warriors' are indiscriminately adding names to lists like List of converts to Hinduism from Christianity and List of converts to Hinduism from Islam without even verifying the sources or self-admission as required by WP:BLPCAT. I have tried to fix a few in the past but always found it reverted without any valid explanations or consensus. --Bringtar (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming from you who just violated WP:BLPCAT by adding few entries on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism that fail WP:BLPCAT, and using or misrepresenting unreliable source like Filmibeat?
 * I am taking the liberty of changing the title of this thread to invite a broader discussion.
 * I am sure that unlikely we would get enough editors to cleanup the frequent problems created by you or any other editors on these lists. I am now failing to see if these lists are encyclopedic at all because of the highly dubious criteria which are never set, and if we were to stick only WP:BLPCAT (for living people) and WP:V for both dead and alive, then still religious conversion seems to be a private issue and most of the people who have converted from one religion to another would avoid being explicit about it. But due to reports in mass media, people will still click on these lists to find the name or include the names they believe we have missed. I think it is best to get rid of all these lists per WP:LISTCRUFT. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is a noticeboard and not your talkpage for ranting. Several editors are already dealing with your disruptive edits etc. so if you do not have any postive contributions to make then you can spare us of your POV here. If you think my edis violates any Wikipedia Policy then open a talk page discussion on that article's talk page. --Bringtar (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Isn't it necessary to point out BLP violations committed by you especially when you are falsely accusing others of BLP violation right above? You don't understand the point of this noticeboard, just like you don't understand what is WP:V and WP:BLP. I see those "several editors" dealing with you though, and telling you that you are wrong with your poor sourcing. I have already refuted each of your points there on talk pages.
 * Since the "several editors" you pointed out find the article to be problematic I have nominated it and other related lists for deletion at Articles for deletion/Lists of religious converts. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why making a fool out of yourself, brother? Both the diffs you provided against me are part of engaing me in the discussion and this is how this community works and not by 'trolling'. And FYI, I have not made any BLP violations. Both my entries to List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism are well sourced and self-admission required by BLPCAT so please make sure you check the sources or at least discuss with the concerned editor. --Bringtar (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Virginia Halas McCaskey
There is an endless edit war going on over at Virginia Halas McCaskey with no admin intervention. Additionally, this page continues to receive vandalism on an almost weekly basis. Can someone please step in? --Jkaharper (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite getting the edit war over the infobox and have warned both users for 3RR. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Jason Binn
Hello I tried making a BOLD edit by removing the following lines on Binn's page but it got replaced by User:Hipal

''Binn's ex-girlfriend Amy Dorris says that they attended the U.S. Open in 1997 with Donald Trump, who Binn had described as his best friend. At the event she alleges that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her''.


 * From my understanding, I believe the lines are funny. 1. Both dudes attended a U.S Open event as claimed by the ex-girl. This has nothing to do with Binn's page. 2.  Donald Trump is being accused of assaulting Binn's ex-girlfriend. The sexual assault is a mere allegation that is not proven. It's against WP:CRIME. If at all it must be allowed, it should be on  Donald Trump's page not on Binn's.

I believe the entire lines shouldn't be on that page. I strongly believe the entire content ought to be removed. It makes no sense. This is biography of a Living person.

I stand to be corrected. Pls take a look. ThanksIlsecondoordine (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Image question
Just noted what appears to be black & white, hand-drawn digital caricatures that have been added to the infoboxes of several BLPs. For example, see,

I don't recall seeing these types of images used like this before. I'm not particularly familiar with image policy, so I'm just seeking feedback. Any editors that are versed in image use, and of course BLPs, if they could take a look at these articles and post some insight, it would be appreciated. They're all from the same account on Commons. I posted an ANI there similar to this one, and of course notified them of the ANI there. They don't appear to have an account here (on en.wiki), but I will add a note of this report to the Commons ANI report. Thanks -  wolf  07:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * , who added these images to articles here.  — Jeff G. ツ 11:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jeff G, these images were drawn by independant artist to illustrate articles lacking an illustration. They have been advised about the copyright issues and have published their original work with a creative commons license.  is a french contributor. I cannot remember if he speaks English.  and . Nattes à chat (talk) 13:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the images are not based directly on any copyrighted photographs, this can be suitable replacements, but editors offering them should make sure with other editors that the image is a fair and not unflattering representation of the BLP (I don't have any comment to that for these examples though initially they don't seem to be unflattering). That is of course assuming that these were released under a free license themselves. --M asem (t) 13:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Jeff G, yes, it is part of the project Les sans images, on a voluntary basis. The drawing technique is very much used in the press and on publications in general. It is a way for illustrators to contribute without writing. --Alacoolwiki (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Having just checked all of the above against pictures of the subjects, they are certainly not BLP violations for being unflattering - they are rather good likenesses compared to say the more common 'caricature' which exaggerates features for comic effect. The Tess Asplund one is particularly useful to illustrate the subject as it shows her in the pose for which she is recognised, and we couldnt use any of the actual photos of her doing that. So I dont personally have any issues with this style of picture where no free picture is available. However Cathleen Morawetz for example has been dead for quite a few years, and by our implementation of NFCC we could use a non-free photo (as no free equiv could be created and one hasnt been sourced by now) and there is probably one somewhere that is suitable. I would say if this project is to go ahead, to first limit it to subjects who are alive with no image, but identify those who are dead who we want an image for and pass it on to someone to do the requisite checking. I say this only because it would be more efficient (and less likely to cause bad feeling) for the artists to spend their creative time on something that may not be immediately replaced. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, much has already been said by my fellows from les sans pagEs. I would just like to add to the last comment from that the pictures are made from the point of view of the French-speaking wikipedia, where no fair use is in place, that's why the artist are covering both living and dead women. I have added the illustrations to the English speaking wikipedia pages (when it was not made automatically by wikidata-linked infobox), when I have seen there was no illustration. Of course if you can find available photos, we would understand if you prefer to use photos instead of drawings. --Celinea33 (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks Celinea33, that makes more sense. I was worried they were being done specifically for ENWP and that the hard work would be in vain (due to NFCC), as long as everyone involved in the creation is aware that on ENWP deceased subjects are likely to be replaced (at some future time) then I have no objections from a BLP standpoint. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Thewolfchild: I am satisfied from the responses above that this is the best way to illustrate articles here and on French Wikipedia for those individuals (until free photos can supplant the drawings). What do you think?  — Jeff G. ツ 02:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Libracles gallicus.JPG There has been a lot of discussion in the past about user-generated pics, from glass atomic-structures that are more understandable in a two-dimensional drawing, even though not perfectly accurate, than they would be if drawn more-accurately in three dimensions, to pictures of train engines. Or even pictures of prehistoric animals which can only be reconstructed out of fossil records, a good understanding of animal anatomy, and a lot of imagination, like those made by our very own Mr. Fink. (I thought the pic to the right was a great one for the moose article, just to give the reader something to visualize.) I would say that in all cases, as long as the drawings check out, are not drawn for humor or exaggeration, and give the reader a decent visualization, then they are fine. If nothing else, good placeholders until something better comes along. Zaereth (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I just seem to recall an editor going on a tear awhile back removing numerous infoboxes pictures (drawn/painted, etc) from the bio's of Popes, from I believe the pre-Renaissance era, because of some policy issue. While this isn't a BLP issue, I wondered if the same image-policy might apply. Again, I'm just seeking feedback. Thank for the replies -  wolf  17:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with that particular case, but I could foresee some issues arising in cases where such a person is long dead and especially if no portraits were ever made of them at the time. As an analogy, unlike Captain Cook, Christopher Columbus never had his picture painted during his lifetime, so no one really knows what he looks like. Portraits of him were done long after his death, but those are strictly the product of the painters' imagination with no basis in fact. I could see the same problems arising from drawings of popes from 1000 years ago, but then again I'm not familiar with the case in question. Like most things on Wikipedia, these often need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. In this case, where we have real photos to compare with, I don't see any problem beyond the fact that a real pic of the highest quality would be preferable. Zaereth (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Winston Sterzel
I came across this article and already made some minor changes for the purpose of impartial tone(WP:IMPARTIAL). Since he is a quite well-known opinion-based critic about China in Youtube, I have the impression that this article might be too one-sided. That's why I am asking more people to review these pieces. The problem I have spotted is that biography relied heavily on interviews, which might not be reliable. And those media outlets who cited him mostly are from the countries that might have conflict of interest with China (VOA and some Taiwanese news etcs). Also, the section "Career after leaving China" needs more references.

Either way, I am neutral and probably wont take part in editing this article anytime soon. Someone97816 (talk) 00:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Christian Rosa


A Paris based IP user is edit warring to change the birthdate of Christian Rosa. Their Artnet profile says they were born in September 12, 1982. While their FBI indictment says they were 43 as of October 2021, putting their birthdate as c. 1978. The IP is edit warring to solely include the 1978 date. Given that the sources conflict, shouldn't both be included? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's not widely covered in reliable secondary sources it should likely just be removed. We shouldn't be using the primary source for a DOB, and a single mention of birthday on an artnet profile isn't enough coverage to keep the birthdate in. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, that seems like the best option here. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP is contiuing to edit war, this time simply adding is "a 43 year old" based on articles in Monopol Magazine https://www.monopol-magazin.de/der-fall-christian-rosa ArtNet https://news.artnet.com/art-world/christian-rosa-former-art-star-accused-selling-forged-pettibon-paintings-reportedly-arrested-portugal-2044403, which appear to be based on the age given in the FBI indictment. Given that his real DOB is not publicised in the sources I still rather we just not include a date at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree. The big problem with "43 year old" is not necessarily ambiguity, as a little amibguity is often unavoidable or even favorable. The bigger problem is that it is written in a present temporal-perspective (related to, but not to be confused with verb tense), meaning that it's written like a newspaper would write it. Newspapers can do that, and for them it's actually better to write from a present perspective, because news changes on a daily basis. But is someone actually going to monitor this article and change his age every year? When writing books or encyclopedia, it's better to write from a perfect or "timeless' perspective, as if "outside of time looking in". In other words, we should avoid adverbs like "today", or "yesterday" and it's always better to use dates than ages.

Is this a good enought source for BLP purposes? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * When it comes to DOBs, however, this is interesting but ultimately useless information when it comes to defining the subject. It's just statistical data, not much different from height or weight, and just like them, it's not really necessary info in most cases. It's trivia, in the sense that the story would read just the same without it. If the year is published in an RS, that would usually be acceptable, but for the full date we really need multiple RSs. If there is any question at all then it should probably just be removed altogether. In most cases we don't really lose anything by omitting the DOB, so erring on the side of caution is definitely the better choice. Zaereth (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Now at AN3, see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP user, apparently socking under the username has now added a source addressing the contradiction, a comment by the staff of Austria's Der Standard made in the comments section of one of their articles about Rosa  the text is as follows: (in translation} "To explain, Rosa used the birth year of 82 ', which is why it was mentioned in numerous reports until recently (only last week in profile, for example). In fact, it is wrong. Whatever the reason why he made himself younger: 78' is his actual birth year ..."


 * No. The article says ""Bad boy" attitude - At the same time, Rosa, born in 1978, was staged as a shooting star on the Viennese scene with the support of business-minded curators and gallery owners. His "bad boy" attitude, which he brutally cultivated - sometimes to the chagrin of those affected - secured him an attention of a questionable nature. Money and fame were what drove him. No matter what the cost." The comments section was the author explaining why her article doesn't match other sources. The problem here is that, regardless of whether Der Standard is a reliable source or not (I don't know if they're news or more tabloid), this particular article is an op/ed column, so I would not use it as one. Have you asked the IP why it is so important to them? There has to be a reason that is very deeply personal to them, and more often than not simply confronting them with it is a way to give them pause for thought. Zaereth (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The IP/Beuys Joseph is the silent type. It's difficult to communicate with those. I agree with your assessment that a comment is probably not a good enough BLP source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Understood. It was just a suggestion, because, in my experience, most people have no clue what drives them, and when asked about it, they find themselves at a total loss, and suddenly it doesn't seem worth it anymore. At least, sometimes it works. Zaereth (talk) 02:22, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Rob Monster
Rob Monster is going to be a hard article to get right, as people understandably have strong feelings about Mr Monster. It's not a good article for a BLP I would say, so I started vetting the refs. The first I vetted was a Huffpost article, since it was used 19 times. I noted that: That's the first ref vetted, and of course I took it out and all fraught material solely ref'd by that (while explaining on the talk page), as BLP requires prompt action (dif). But there's been some opposition there, and my edit was rolled back, and the article's under discretionary sanctions, which I think means 1RR, so I've fouled out. There are other refs to be vetted so let's get to work. Advice, comments, etc.? Herostratus (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) At Reliable sources/Perennial sources, for reporting on political issues, Huffpost is tagged as "Achtung-orange.svg No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply: The source is marginally reliable..."
 * 2) And it's biased and has poor reporting standards. The first chart Google gives me has Huffpost (and its owner, Buzzfeed) as straddling the line between "skews liberal" and "hyper-partisan liberal"; for quality, the chart has them then in the "Unfair interpretations of the news" quadrant. There are other charts, look at them if you like.
 * 3) And I mean after all the Huffpost article is titled The Bible-Thumping Tech CEO Who’s Proud Of Keeping Neo-Nazis Online. Which is certainly spin, as Bible-quoting -- sorry, thumping -- isn't a key part of Monster's game I think, nor is neo-Nazism in particular something he's proud of (he certainly didn't say it) as opposed hosting any and all right-wing (far-right if you prefer) sites like gun nuts etc. The body of the Huffpost article follows suit. It's an egregious hatchet job.
 * Note your points 1 and 2 contradict each other, given that the "first chart Google gives me" is the Ad Fontes Media Media Bias Chart, which is, itself, listed on Reliable sources/Perennial sources (3rd entry from the top) as "generally unreliable" - in other words, strictly worse than Huffington Post. So you're not really helping your case there. --GRuban (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As for point 3, "Bible-Thumping", let's see. CNN says "Rob Monster -- an outspoken born-again Christian". Washington Post says "Monster repeatedly broke out into prayer, asking for God to dispel “demons,” “evil spirits” and “agents of Satan” in the chatroom. He urged listeners to delete the stolen data, explaining that his team had “cursed” the files during a “courts of heaven” prayer session.". If not for those articles, yes, HuffPost would certainly seem to be an egregious hatchet job. But given those articles, it seems to be pretty much in the mainstream. So to speak.
 * Finally, the article doesn't say he's proud of neo-Nazism, it says he's proud of keeping them online. That's a key difference to those of us who are old enough to remember a little thing called National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie and a little group called the ACLU (I've met you, Hero, so I humbly propose you may be old enough to remember this, as I am), which assigned two Jewish lawyers to prosecute and win said case for the Neo-Nazis. Were the lawyers proud of the Neo-Nazis? Heck no. Sorry, let me rephrase. Hell no. But they were quite proud of letting them march. --GRuban (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Right now I'm only concerned with the Huffpost article. I don't want to vet more if my edits are going to get rolled back. Next comes Vice and so forth. The ref's have been much improved and probably most of the article can be reffed to proper sources. I'm going one at a time, here.


 * "Bible-thumping" is a pejorative -- you can't use it, except with "[person with considerable standing] called him a 'bible-thumper'" (you have to have an exact quote) and even that is one person's opinion and is nasty, so I wouldn't recommend it, and let the reader decide for herself if he's a bible thumper.


 * He's proud of hosting sites banned from normal web hosters generally. They're all real right-wing and includes Nazis, but I don't think he cares about Nazis any more than any of the right-wing sites he hosts so why single that out except to inflame. AFAIK he's never mentioned Nazis at all. We want to be really careful extrapolating what the guy is proud of. There is a libertarian angle to what he's doing (I do have an opinion on whether or and that's just a cover, but so).


 * The ACLU has nothing to do with anything. This is not a political question it is a BLP question; everyone has a right to a fair trail, and to conservative treatment in the world's greatest encyclopedia. As I've said (and I think as a personal opinion this is not a BLP violation): I hate the guy. Let's leave the politics out of it. Herostratus (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As news outlets go, on a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being TMZ and 10 being the NY Times, I would rate Huffington Post as a 2, bordering on 3; better than tabloids but worse than highly-partisan news-outlets like MSNBC, CNN, or Fox News. They write some pretty interesting stories from time to time, and many of them newsworthy, but they tend to do so --more often than not-- with quite of bit of persuasive writing mixed in. I mean, for a good example, see the headline you posted above. The same information could easily be given in a more neutral tone, but that's not what Huffington Post really strives for. It sells copies but makes it hard to take them too seriously. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree we shouldn't call him a Bible-Thumper in our voice, but we can, with care and selectively, use the HuffPost article as a source. That's not the same thing as slavishly quoting every word of the article. --GRuban (talk) 03:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As you say, most of it is sourced to other sources as well, and in fact, totally noncontroversial material was also tagged as CN in this drive to totally remove Huff post from the article (and it seems these kinds of statements are the only ones solely sourced to the Huff post). Nor do we say (as far as I can see) him " a Bible-Thumper".Slatersteven (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not commenting on this particular case, but in a general sense, I think it's helpful to try the shoe on the other foot. Just imagine, if you will, if Rush Limbaugh created his own "news" outlet (the Limbaugh Times), with all the grace and editorial oversight that Rush Limbaugh can provide. Would we consider that a reliable source for contentious claims in a BLP? If other, better sources give the same info, then why bother with low quality sources? Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Most likely not, so again I ask what contentious information if being solely sources to the Huff post?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

While we're here, can someone weigh in on Herostratus' opinion that we should remove citations to the Huffington Post article that are supporting non-contentious statements (date of birth, etc.), and either leave them uncited or with citation needed templates, because the title of the article shouldn't appear in the references? I'm unaware of any policy or guideline that instructs us not to use references that would otherwise be usable for non-contentious statements of fact because the title is objectionable to one editor, or that leaving the content in place and uncited is somehow preferable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, ignore me, this is what I get for going through my watchlist one page at a time. I see their whole edit was undone, and so the missing citations I'm mentioning have been restored. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 23:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to answer your question anyhow, if you don't mind, I think Hero answered that above: "Achtung-orange.svg No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply. I think for BLP purposes we should strive for better, but for general or non-contentious info where BLP policy isn't as much of a concern, this is something to try to work out at RSN. It'd be nice to get the community to reach a consensus one way or another, but right now it looks to be in limbo, with a big "caution - handle with care" sign attached.


 * Typically, the way a newspaper would handle questionable sources is to simply say, "According to the Huffington Post...". That keeps their asses covered, but too much of that and we start to sound like a newspaper ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Apparently thugs are threatening User:GorillaWarfare, a major editor on the article. Considering Mr Monster's clients, that's not surprising. That's all that matters right now. Mr Monster is indeed a ________, so who cares about him and his stupid article. I'm out, maybe the article should be put under special oversight or something. I no longer care what's in the article, it's not important, you guys figure it out or just close the thread. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thugs? That sounds pretty ominous. Not to mention highly concerning. I've always had great respect for GW and very much value her opinions, and if you need a body guard, let me know. I've had to deal with thugs before, and while I don't know much about gorilla warfare, when it comes to Viking warfare, why, that's what Zaereth's do best. But seriously (and this is something I usually only have an opportunity to say to people who get so stressed they seem on the verge of a breakdown), nothing on Wikipedia is worth your health and happiness. Zaereth (talk) 10:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Dave Scotti
Dave Scotti now known as Davy Garlo. See Screen Actors Guild, YouTube, Webpage, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoJinx (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @DinoJinx I don't know what the WP:COMMONNAME is in this case, you may be right. However, getting the article inline with WP:BLP is IMO more urgent. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Sedona Prince
In August, an anonymous editor added information sourced from what appears to be a fake news website naming the romantic partner of Prince. I am concerned this is a violation of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE in the case of the supposed romantic partner; thus I recommend that revisions between the addition of the info and the removal be revdel'd. Arbor to SJ (talk) 07:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Judge Donna Scott Davenport
This is newly created. While the person has coverage, I am concerned that the article is maybe presenting a very negative spin and is almost only on Rutherford County, Tennessee, juvenile jail controversy. I do not know enough about this myself to fix it. Pikavoom (talk) 10:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The article has been deleted as an attack page. Neiltonks (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Khushi Dubey


1)Profile picture is not there. Full birth date is not written(24th april, 2000).

2)My new regional films have not been added:    1)Munna Bhai (with Pradeep Pandey Chintu) 2) Didiya Ke Dewar Dil Le Gail

3)Incomplete information on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.229.239.119 (talk) 07:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Accessing a free picture of Dubey is outside the scope of this noticeboard.
 * Removing the birth date since not even the day is sourced.
 * What's the source for the new films? We need reliable sources to verify the information against. —C.Fred (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez
I'm writing here instead of editing the article, which I really want to do.

Matt Sanchez died on September 11, 2018.

I remained in touch with him after my Wikimedia days and had a few conversations over the years. I met him in person one time when I was visiting Southern California. As controversial a character that he was, he was an incredibly likeable individual.

His sister and I knew of each other because we were both in Berkeley and associated with theological schools. She got in touch with me after Matt died and invited me to the celebration of life, held in San Jose the following month, which I was sadly unable to attend.

I don't know what to do in an instance like this. There was no obituary or notice in the news when Matt died. He was mostly off the grid in his last couple years. When I met him in person he was driving for Uber and wasn't exactly living at the top of his game.

Nobody covered his death, not the porn media, not Fox News, not anyone who he was previously associated with. So I have no sources I can add. Just my personal attestation that he is, in fact, dead.

I don't know if we have any precedents for this sort of situation but if someone may guide me, please help

Bastique ☎ call me! 01:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This a troubling issue with no easy answers. We've previously had this issue with Justin Berry (see this RSN discussion) who apparently disappeared in Mexico in 2018 and who has been reportedly declared dead, but there's no reliable sources covering it at all, which leaves us in limbo, Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is the sister interested in correcting the article? I would argue that if she publishes a web page with details about him and his death, that is clearly from her as his sister, it would be a sufficiently reliable source for the purpose, per WP:IAR if nothing else. --GRuban (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If Sanchez's sister is interesting in correcting the article, I'd suggest that she contact info-en-q@wikimedia.org with her request. If they can verify her identity, then that should (in my view at least) be sufficient to justify including the fact that Sanchez is dead. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to get together for coffee. I'll pose the question to her at that point. I'm not sure if the accuracy of his Wikipedia article is of major concern to her, however, as much as it is to me, a rather inactive Wikipedian. Bastique ☎ call me! 02:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * These are some interesting solutions. There are a lot of people who never get an obituary in the news, for whatever reason. Perhaps they're shy, or just very private, or their family never gave it a moment's thought in their time of grief. Thus, more and more Wikipedia articles are bound to end up with dead subjects and no way to verify it ... that is, until they are at least 120. As always, I think we need some extremely reliable sources before we start declaring people dead, because we also have to look at the harm that can happen if we're wrong, or the victims of a hoax ourselves. Personally, I think it would be more upsetting to find out I'm dead on Wikipedia before it actually happens than to simply have an article that hasn't acknowledged my death for lack of good sources. I think a direct request from the family where someone can truly verify their identity is a possible option. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We do need published sources, Verifiability is a Wikipedia policy, there aren't many of those. Making a direct request can't be enough to include information, we need to be able to cite a published source than our readers can then check. --GRuban (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I know, and I'm right with you there. The problem with going from their own website or facebook page is those can also be easily faked, and there's no way of really knowing if they're telling the truth or just out for a little revenge or something. A combination of the two, however... I don't know enough about computers to really make an informed assessment. It doesn't negate the fact that the ideas you both presented are interesting and maybe worth developing more. Whatever the case, I think we have to be extremely careful, because having an article that simply hasn't acknowledged a person's death doesn't seem like such a big deal, but declaring someone dead before their time could be downright traumatic. Zaereth (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


 * One thing that occurs to me is that, many people may not even realize that obituaries are not automatic. Newspapers don't have a reporter on staff who investigates every death. Unless you're really famous, it generally up to the family to write and submit their own obits on behalf of their dearly departed. I'm not aware of any time limit on that. I'm sure a paper would be happy to publish it as long as several months after the event, if not more, as long as the given dates are correct. If it is important to the family, that would be my suggestion. (Our subjects often forget that the best way to update their articles is through reliable sources, which is always an option for them.) Zaereth (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Soheil Beiraghi
Hi. Many weeks has passed since Draft:Soheil Beiraghi's article has created, but no one reviewed it yet. Could one of the admins do me a favor and take a look at it? Thank you. Kabootaremesi (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Ben Francis
An anonymous user has been repeatedly restoring (most recent diff linked) a "controversy" section consisting solely of a mention of drug use by the subject, as cited to dubious sources. I and at least two other users have been reverting this editor on the grounds of WP:BLPREMOVE. -- Dylan 620 (he/him · talk · edits) 14:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This is fully verified and sourced material with a clear video of the person in question using drugs, and so does not fulfil the grounds of being removed due to WP:BLPREMOVE - there is no reason why it can't be included on the article. The video in the source is definitive proof of what I added to the article, regardless of how 'reliable' one may claim the source to be. There is no reason to keep removing sourced and unbiased information from the article - it is counter-productive, and goes against the purpose of Wikipedia as an entity and institution to expand the knowledge of mankind. Don't remove sourced information just because you don't like what it says. 77.96.159.195 (talk) 18:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IP you seem confused about Wikipedia's purpose. While "Wikipedia as an entity and institution to expand the knowledge of mankind (sic)" may not be inaccurate, this does not mean we publish ed anything and sundry. There are a lot of things which while obviously true, will never be on Wikipedia and for reasons that don't specifically have to do with be doubt over truth. For BLPs an important one is ultimately WP:UNDUE. Information has to be significant enough for us to cover. If other reliable secondary sources do not cover it then generally we do not either. Clearly no one else cares about it, so we don't either no matter how sure we are it is true. In this case, the Daily Mirror is a secondary source, but for BLPs cannot be considered reliable and so definitely does not establish the significance of this claim. If the Mirror and the video are your only sources, then this information will rightfull have to stay out. It does not matter how sure anyone is that it's true, that issue does actually arise even here for a variety of reasons but I'll put that aside since it doesn't matter. Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Carly Simon was born in 1943 ... NOT 1945
Birth records prove she was born in 1943:

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=4431959

'''Name: 	Carly Simon Birth Date: 	25 Jun 1943 Birth Place: 	Manhattan, New York City, New York, USA Certificate Number: 	21212

She claims 1945, but IMDb and Goodreads list her true age:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800089/

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/173740.Carly_Simon

Those are not dispositive, but the birth record is.

Her sisters Joanna Simon (October 20, 1936) and Lucy Simon (May 5, 1940) are also older than their Wiki pages say:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/census-1940/T627/NY/m-t0627-02644/m-t0627-02644-00830.jpg

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3992145

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=61457&h=3832907

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2048095/

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0800254/

WhatsTheTruth00 (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure why this is here. The identical point about Carly Simon was raised on the article's talk page by this user five months ago, and was responded to by user: Binksternet.This is a case of WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. If WhatsTheTruth thinks there are now sufficient reliable sources available to justify the change shouldn't this be on the article's talk page first? Meters (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And now the user has opened an RFC on this on the talk page, Talk:Carly Simon, so why have it in two places? Meters (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OP indef'ed for BLP vios. Meters (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Illeana Douglas was born in 1961 ... NOT 1965
See the 1979 Opticon yearbook for Haddam-Killingworth High School in Higganum, Connecticut; she is pictured on page 105 as a graduating senior:

https://www.classmates.com/yearbooks/Haddam-Killingworth-High-School/82172?page=105

Several online sources list her true year of birth:

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001152

https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/10803955.Illeana_Douglas

https://www.peliplat.com/en/library/celeb/pc12638550

https://www.cinemaclock.com/stars/illeana-douglas

http://douglashistory.co.uk/history/illeanadouglas.htm

https://www.myagecalculator.org/famous-birthdays/actress/how-old-is-illeana-douglas/

WhatsTheTruth00 (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As for the previous thread, the user has now opened an RFC for this issue on the article's talk page, Talk:Illeana Douglas.  Meters (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OP has now opened 6 similar RFCs or threads, most without any prior discussion, but has been blocked for BLP vios. See Talk:Carly Simon, Talk:Joanna Simon (mezzo-soprano), Talk:Lucy Simon, Talk:Illeana Douglas, Talk:Penny Marshall, and Talk:Garry Marshall. Meters (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Supposed real name and birthdate of Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter)
Many sources (mostly tabloids and unreliable blogs) have talked about the supposed real name and birth date of Francis Bourgeois (trainspotter) (not sharing here per BLP, but it can be easily Googled if you wish to know). The only sources that might be OK that reported this are The Tab, Manchester Evening News, and HITC, but I'm still wary of adding it unless Francis says so himself or a more reliable source comes out with it. There's also a few, also mostly unreliable, sources reporting that he is or was a music producer. There's been a lot of IP addresses attempting to add the real name/birthdate to the article, so this is why I'm asking. Thoughts? wizzito &#124;  say hello!  12:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The DoB would need to be widely covered in reliable sources to be included, so if you have to dig and search to find a couple places it's covered in reliable sources it probably shouldn't be included. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And a YoB needs a WP:BLP good ref. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)