Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive338

How should BLP apply to dictators like Putin and Assad on allegations they can block in their courts?
An editor added a new section in the Personal life section of Vladimir Putin covering the allegations that he is a pedophile who hid evidence of his paedophilia. I fixed the title and joined the discussion about it, receiving a stern warning from an administrator about misreading WP:BLP. Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin, as they simply kill or imprison their critics so that none of them can file "formal" accusations like one can in any first world country. The guy literally shut down a newspaper for outing his mistress, and there are all sorts of allegations that he's shut down with his control of the government, judiciary, and press. I also added an allegation to the War crimes section of Bashar al-Assad's page, implicating him in what might amount to tens of thousands of murders. CutePeach (talk) 12:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * BLP applies throughout the encyclopaedia and to everyone who is a living person and also the recently deceased. It doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks of the person. If you aren't willing to accept this, you need to refrain from editing anywhere on Wikipedia related to such living persons. I suggest you do so voluntarily since if we have to topic ban you, trying to craft a topic ban covering those people who you don't think deserve BLP protections sounds too complicated. It'll likely be better if we just topic ban you from all people covered by BLP. As for the rest, especially for public figures, we do not only cover allegations that make it to court. In fact I'm pretty sure there are many places throughout Wikipedia where war crime and similar accusations against both Assad and Putin are mentioned although most of these have never been brought up in court. However we do require that any allegations are well covered in reliable secondary sources and in a manner that establishes significance of such allegations. Nil Einne (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ​​ Did you even read the content and the discussion before commenting here and threatening me with topic bans? You replied within minutes and couldn’t possibly have read what I contributed, and it is also evident from your statement that you were unaware that the source I added is WP:SECONDARY, and that the reverted version cites a WP:PRIMARY source. After you've actually read the content and discussion, please formulate an argument for why we should cover the alleged poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in the Vladimir Putin article without explaining why he was allegedly poisoned because that is the only thing I added along with the quote from ​​Bukovsky to WP:BALANCE it . The level of hostility in your reply is shocking. Do we know each other from somewhere? CutePeach (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. This topic deserves some detailed consideration. I don't see why Wikipedia should seek to protect the reputation of despotic and deranged war criminals. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Before I replied, I read what you wrote above where you specifically said "" which was more than enough for me to reply. What you said is a completely unacceptable attitude for any editor to have. There is no such thing as a living person who which BLP does not apply, period. If you aren't willing to accept this then at a minimum do not edit those BLPs for which you think it doesn't apply. Do not come to BLPN and claim there are people to which BLP does not apply and expect editors to let that stand. That's completely unacceptable for any editor to say, especially for an experienced editor. There is zero need for me to read anything else you've said when you specifically came here to say there are people to which you think BLP does not apply. I made it clear in my comment I was not commenting on the specific issues since it's irrelevant. As long as you are editing from the viewpoint there are people to which BLP does not apply you are unwelcome in any discussion concerning any such living person. I also pointed out you are making an additional mistake. There's nothing in BLP which forbids us from covering well sourced allegations against living people which have never been tested in court. So there's no need for us to remove BLP protections for certain individuals just so we can cover any such allegations as you seem to think. Ergo, your apparent suggestion that certain people shouldn't be protected by BLP so we can cover such details is even sillier. As I also pointed out, this doesn't mean we cover all allegations, they need to have sufficient sourcing etc. The question of whether to cover any specific allegations can be decided by discussion between editors who are willing to accept that BLP covers all living persons based on an evaluation of the sourcing etc and guided by our policies and guidelines and including and especially BLP. There is no reason why editors who are not willing to accept BLP applies to living persons should take part in such discussions, and instead good reason why they should not do so. Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In case it remains unclear, although I did read (at some stage, possible after my first reply, I don't remember and don't care since it's irrelevant) the discussion at Talk:Vladimir Putin. But in truth, even before I read the discussion I knew I have insufficient interest in what goes on in the Vladimir Putin article for me to likely get involved in the specifics of any dispute. The same for Bashar al-Assad. I have even less interest to get involved in the specifics over whether to include allegations of paedophilia. Any editors who are interested and who do accept BLP applies to all living persons are welcome to participate in such discussions, I've nothing against that and don't wish to impede it. But that's not going to stop me challenging any editor who claims there are people to which BLP does not apply. This is BLPN, and as I said when you come to BLPN and make such a ridiculous suggestion that there are living people for which BLP doesn't apply, you should expect to be challenged. Nil Einne (talk) 13:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC) 16:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably final comment, I do recall you from the time of your topic ban and your work in such articles but I do not believe that has anything to do with why I am so hostile other than the fact it informed me that you are an experienced editor and it's fair to treat you as such instead of a seriously confused newbie. I am so hostile because I care about BLP, and it's shocking to me an experienced editor would come to BLPN and try to say there are people for which BLP doesn't or shouldn't apply. I mean that's a silly thing to say anywhere, but to come to BLPN and say it, to me just takes the cake. Nil Einne (talk) 13:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * as answered below, it is more of a matter of how BLP applies, and as you said for public figures, we do not only cover allegations that make it to courtt - also answering my question in the headline above. The dispute in Talk:Vladimir Putin is about how BLP applies to Putin and the paedophilia allegations made against him by Litvinenko, who Putin allegedly ordered the poisoning of a few months later, according to a British government report prominently reported in a number of high quality RS. From your reply, it was quite apparent to me that you did not read the linked content and discussions, which looks confirmed in your subsequent replies saying there is zero need for me to read anything else you've said and possible after my first reply. Had you read the linked discussions, you would have understood that I did not say that BLP should not apply to some living people, but that I am asking how it should apply to some people - specifically authoritarian dictators, for specific claims, which anyone can also understand from the headline here. Looking at other posts made to this noticeboard, it is clear that reviewing linked discussions is the norm before commenting, so I would ask you to strike your unkind comments above and delete the aspersions you posted on my talk page. This noticeboard is for discussing BLP issues and your conduct here is unacceptable.  CutePeach (talk) 08:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * CutePeach, you did say "Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin". Though it's clear now that you're raising a question of nuanced application, it was reasonable for NE at the time to address the most major issue first. Your posting came just after a talk page exchange in which you suggested that "WP:BLP in the general . . . does not apply to public figures" and then received a formal warning from . At the time, there were no BLP issues more pressing than addressing an experienced editor's clearly stated belief that BLP does not apply to some living people. I am glad you've stepped back from that stance, and I suggest that some striking here and at the talk page might help newcomers to these conversations avoid some initial shock. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , it is obvious from the headline of this section that this is a question of nuance, so I'm not sure why you, like, are highlighting that sentence. I'm also not sure why you're bringing up the mistaken statement I made in regards to WP:BLP and public figures, when Nil Einne clearly did not even read that discussion. What is the point of this noticeboard if editors don't comment on specific issues raised here? CutePeach (talk) 10:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Of course BLP applies to all living people. What's harder is to work out how to apply it.  I'm seeing some dodgy arguments giving shaky reasons for removing well-sourced allegations.  I'm not active on this topic and I don't propose to get involved -- but I do worry about the likelihood that there are reputation-managers active on Russia-related topics, and I don't think we should have much patience with obviously dumb arguments (e.g. we can't use Litvinenko as a source because he was an "opponent" of Putin).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Without digging too deep into this, I'm going to have to agree with Nil. People in Putin's position are top-celebrity level in terms of their notability, so the BLP rules are far more lax for them. That is why we have WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which is an exemption from the normal crime and privacy rules. However, it doesn't suddenly mean BLP no longer applies. It does, and the exemption is very specific about the requirements for inclusion, which is not simply because he's of celebrity status, but this would have to be very widely covered to the degree that there is no longer any point in trying to protect his right to be innocent until proven guilty.

Now the argument can be made that he's almost a dictator (not really, because Russian government is a bit more complicated than that, but close). He has the power to deny others their rights, so he should not have any himself. To that argument I would say, now who's being the dictator? You can't fight an "enemy" by becoming them.

Once all that is satisfied, then you still have the next hurdle, which is NPOV, including BALANCE and WEIGHT. Now you have to weigh all the sources about this thing against all the other sources out there about everything else, and try to put it in proportion with the rest of the article. Does it deserve an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence or two? Or would even one sentence be too much?

I only looked at the first link, and upon seeing it I can see why it was deleted. It just reeks of spin. To begin with, the title: "Possible sexual deviance". Seriously? First, never begin a title with "possible". "Deviance" is also a euphemism meant to invoke a certain emotional response in the reader. A proper title should be neutral, such as "Sexual allegations", or something very specific. And the euphemisms just go on from there. "Unlawful carnal knowledge"? Again, seriously? I'm surprised the author left out "forbidden". Nobody talks like that. You may as well just use the F-word. Even if we do pass all the hurdles for inclusion, we still need to remain neutral and formal, like an encyclopedia and not a tabloid. Zaereth (talk) 18:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the specific issue this is a WP:RS/WP:SYNTH issue, doesn't really seem to be a BLP question per say. Not really sure what is gained from the general discussion here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a BLP issue in that we have very strict requirements about accusing anyone of a crime, especially one so heinous. BLP works in accordance with all other policies. It is not a separate policy. It just provides some extra rules and restrictions for living people. It works with all other policies, modifies them, and they modify it, but ultimately it also trumps all other policies. We need extremely good sources and lots of them. Now I'm not a fan of Putin, but the same standards we use for Biden or Obama need to apply to him as well. Zaereth (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm missing something we don't have WP:RS which talk about accusations of a crime so why are we even talking about it? We don't need to invoke the extra rules and restrictions when the ordinary ones would work just fine. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you in the right section? Child molestation is a crime, even in Russia, although US laws apply here because that's where the servers are. See the first link posted at the top. Zaereth (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What WP:RS are you seeing? All I see is the party organ of a separatist group (clearly not a WP:RS) and an unrelated BBC article which has been synthed in. I note that much of this discussion appears to violate WP:BLP... We can't discuss allegations against living people which haven't been covered in WP:RS. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The thing about Putin, and Russian government in general, is that it is and has always been an extreme bureaucracy. Like Stalin and so many others, Putin got into power by out-bureaucrating the bureaucrats. Personally, I hate bureaucracies, and would rather not see Wikipedia become anymore of one. If someone has a problem with a bio, then they should feel welcome to bring it here. They may not get the answer they were looking for, but why be all bureaucratic about it and try to shut down any discussion or fob it off to another "department". Now your point seems to be, if it's not in reliable sources then it's ok to put it in the article. Nobody look. Nothing to discuss here. At least, that's how it comes off. That seems ludicrous to me. I take BLP very seriously, and this is part of the discussion is getting totally off topic. Zaereth (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you took BLP seriously you would not have engaged in an extensive discussion of things about a living person without a reliable source. BLP applies everywhere, not just in the article. This entire discussion is inappropriate, I suggest you desist and self revert anything which discusses allegations against living people not covered by reliable sources. Yes I understand that there is a whole "he who cannot be named"/"hairy figment" element to the whole thing which is rather ludicrous, but thats how we're supposed to do BLP. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * and, neither of you seem to have looked past the first link, so either you are missing a clear cut case of WP:CRYBLP, or I am missing something about WP:BLP written in invisble ink. The first link is a contribution by , which, as they said , was copied verbatim from Alexander Litvinenko. After some discussion, I made two attempts to bring it up to standard, by selecting high quality WP:RS, and moving it from the Personal Life​ section to the Poisening of Alexander Litvinenko section . I agree we should not give UNDUE prominence to these claims, which is why I also added the counter claim from Bukovsky, but the British government report - which according to RS - concluded that Putin ordered the poisoning of Litvinenko due to these paedophilia allegations, makes it DUE in the Litvinenko section. If we can't make these claims even with WP:INTEXT attribution, we will have to delete them also from the Alexander Litvinenko article, and all of these talks page discussions. CutePeach (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The simplest answer is: The same as anywhere else. For a start - don't even THINK of adding anything until you get sources at least as good as the sources on (for example) Lavrentiy Beria. THEN remember that Putin and Assad are still (for the time being) living persons and contemplate whether the sources you've found are good enough for a BLP. The world is a big place with heaps of countries that Russian or Syrian courts have no control over, so no need to worry that Wikipedia would be hamstrung. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:Public figure applies, and if several RS (I use three or more as my rule-of-thumb, but in this case an official court report trumps that) mention an accusation, regardless of its truth or falsity, we should cover it.

This is especially true for debunked false accusations as we set the record straight, a clear benefit to the slandered party, IOW very much in line with the spirit of BLP. Failure to cover the matter is whitewashing. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

The better content, citing the official Owen court report, is this: "In particular, the Owen report indicated that the poisoning may have been ordered over an accusation Litvinenko made four months beforehand in an online article, alleging that Putin was a paedophile and that he used his position as head of the FSB to hide evidence of it. Vladimir Bukovsky, a close friend of Litvinenko, said he strongly urged him against publishing it, noting that despite his ferocious hostility toward the Kremlin, Litvinenko still had the mind-set of a security officer and "could not understand the difference between truth and operational information." The New York Times concluded that Litvinenko's allegations of paedophila were "without any evidence"."

Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The claims lacks any evidence as NYT notes and it comes from a defector, thus not reliable. Same applies on other defectors like Guo Wengui, John Bolton and others who were defectors and they also accuse big politicians of many wrongdoings which got coverage from WP:RS, but it doesn't mean their claims would get any inclusion on main biographical articles of the person they are accusing without any basis. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 18:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is irrelevant. You are confusing WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability. We document what RS say about claims, true or not, and BLP's WP:Public figure tells us how we are supposed to include such claims about notable people like Putin.
 * Keep in mind that PUBLICFIGURE applies to even the most outrageous and false claims as long as RS have mentioned them. Wikipedia does the victims a service by also providing the debunkings found in RS. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, while we're quoting policy, you missed the most important one, WP:ONUS, which states, and I quote, "While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. (bold mine). We first need to establish, by consensus, that we should include the allegations or not.  You can't override consensus to require including anything.  There are Wikipedia policies that certain things should NOT be in articles regardless of consensus, but there is literally nothing that MUST be included in an article against consensus, indeed policy is clear that inclusion of anything requires consensus.  The default is always to be silent in absence of consensus.  -- Jayron 32 13:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jayron32, although ONUS, like DUE and CONSENSUS, are policies, they are subjective rubber policies that are frequently misused. They should never be used as a standalone reason, but must be backed by citation of other more solid and less subjective policies. That being said, the question of ONUS is not the question here. We are trying to get past the hurdle of Aman's misunderstanding of BLP, while CutePeach makes the case for why BLP allows this content and why it is indeed DUE.
 * Aman is indeed confusing WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability and arguing against inclusion because the allegation may not be true, which is an irrelevant issue. BLP's WP:Public figure is designed for even the most outrageously false claims. It informs us of how we are supposed to include such claims about notable people like Putin. In this case it goes toward possible motivation for a murder, as noted by the court's Owen report: The Litvinenko Inquiry. Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Chairman: Sir Robert Owen. January 2016.
 * If we don't do that, we fail our primary goal with Wikipedia, as we are supposed to document the sum total of all human knowledge that is found in RS, and that includes facts, lies, opinions, outrageously false accusations, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, nonsense, etc. We are supposed to be inclusionists who seek to include as much as possible of all that (WP:NOTPAPER), including the nonsense, unless it isn't mentioned in RS or is so trivial only horrible sources mention it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * 'we are supposed to document the sum total of all human knowledge'?. That is complete and utter nonsense. Please stop misrepresenting vacuous slogans as policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Per AndyTheGrump, Wikipedia does not include everything without bounds. Editorial decisions are made every day, and where there are disagreements about editorial decisions, we come to a consensus through discussion.  If you believe that all information on every topic for which there is a source must be included in an article, there is no other way to put this, you're just wrong.  You can believe whatever you want, but if you try to edit articles with that as your justification, you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of a block pretty quickly.  -- Jayron 32 15:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Jayron, you know I don't think that, nor do I edit in that manner, so back off with the threats. There are indeed limits to how we apply it, but it is still the reason for the creation of Wikipedia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you recognize such limits, then it bears the possibility that this is one of those limits. There needs to be consensus before we include the information at Wikipedia, and I would posit that there is not anything resembling consensus to include it.  If there is no consensus to include it, it stays out of the article.  -- Jayron 32 15:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I fully agree, in principle. We just disagree in this case. Are we good now? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing on the specific matter in this case is fine, but your argument before seemed to be based on the notion that disagreement was not possible; your prior arguments were not really based on the substance of whether or not the information on Putin passes the relevant bars of WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:BLP, and WP:ONUS, but rather that those policies themselves were invalid. It appears you have backed down on that, and are willing to argue only on the matter at hand.  We're good.  -- Jayron 32 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you coming here, but this noticeboard is about WP:BLP and this discussion is about specific allegations against Putin and whether including them in the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko section of the Vladimir Putin article violates WP:BLP. I disagree with your characterization of the consensus here against including these allegations. The reason for deleting the allegations was that they violate WP:BLP, and I see no consensus here affirming that position. Removing content on the basis of one policy, falling back to another when the first one is refuted, and then grabbing onto WP:ONUS is a conduct problem that should not be encouraged by administrators. I have restored the edit and I am willing to have a discussion about WP:DUE and WP:BALANCE, once we have this BLP thing out of the way. CutePeach (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. You state "I disagree with your characterization of the consensus here against including these allegations."  At my count, there are about 6-7 people arguing against inclusion, and 2-3 arguing for inclusion.  Can you tell me how that is a consensus FOR including the allegations?  -- Jayron 32 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the discussion here isn't just about including the allegations, but if doing so violates WP:BLP. As you are surely aware, WP:CONSENSUS is not the result of a vote, and requires us to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. As such, I count the comments of Valjean, Nomoskedasticity, and My very best wishes as supporting the position that these allegations do not violate WP:BLP and are WP:DUE in the Litvinenko section of the Putin article, while Aman.kumar.goel and AndyTheGrump believe they do violate WP:BLP, and are WP:UNDUE anywhere in the article. The comments from Nil Einne, Zaereth, Daveosaurus, and Aquillion can be considered as either neutral or in support of inclusion, depending on how you read them. For example, Nil says no formal accusation is required for including such allegations, and Zaereth seems to support that position, saying there may also be BALANCE and WEIGHT hurdles to overcome, separate to the BLP issue. Neither you or or Firefangledfeathers seem to have expressed any POV, and seems to still be checking the RS they were previously unaware of - so I have struck his comment as per WP:IDL - leaving us with 4:2 support:oppose on the BLP issue. In the discussion on Talk:Vladimir_Putin, editor Mavigogun is in support, Cullen328 can be read as neutral, and RandomCanadian as opposing, bringing it to 5:3 support:oppose for inclusion. No one has removed the allegations from the Alexander Litvinenko, where they were added over 15 years ago, which shows this is a needlessly personalized dispute. CutePeach (talk) 14:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne clearly has stated that BLP applies in this case, and is not "neutral" on the matter. MVBW has stated that the accusations of pedophilia are "debatable" and questioned whether there was sufficient documentation to include it.  Nomo has not made any statement in support of including the information, but has merely made statements about the behavior of editors in the topic area.  AFAICT, only yourself and Valjean are arguing vehemently for the inclusion of the material given the current level of sourcing available, others (a group which I don't include myself) have noted that the existing sourcing is inadequate.  I have no dog in the race; my concern is only that 1) people recognize that WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS make it clear that, in regards to any contested material, Wikipedia has a clear and unambiguous policy that contested material is left out of article text during the time when it is under contest and 2) that the concerns of those who have expressed them are legitimate.  I don't really have an opinion myself on whether it should or shouldn't be included ultimately; I just want to make sure we are following best practices by leaving contested material out of an article until after the discussion has concluded, and that we don't dismiss legitimate BLP concerns.  -- Jayron 32 14:41, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne clearly said he was not commenting on the specific issues, and answered the question you see in the title of this discussion, saying There's nothing in BLP which forbids us from covering well sourced allegations against living people which have never been tested in court. As I explained to Andy, I had made the mistake of saying WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply to public figures in the article TP , promting Cullen328 to correct me on that and say that a formal accusation is required , which is what prompted me to to start this discussion. I see no no consensus here that there is a legitimate BLP concern with the information as I added it - in the section I added it to - and no editor has tried removing these 15 year old allegations from the Alexander Litvinenko article, as would be required if there was indeed a BLP violation. , who also said he didn't read the discussion, will have their sourcing concerns allayed when they see the six sources I listed in the first post I made in this dispute . I agree Nomo has not made any statement in support of including the information, but as I said, this discussion isn't about including the information, but about the BLP issue. I am not vehemently arguing for inclusion so much as making a stand against editors who have several times failed to WP:AGF and refrain from WP:NPA. I strongly oppose your imposition of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS in this situation, as it presupposes there was a legitimate BLP concern here. There was not. CutePeach (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any time we have serious criminal allegations against a living person, that's a legitimate BLP concern. Consensus may determine that confounding factors, like WP:PUBLICFIGURE may ameliorate those concerns, but that doesn't make the initial concerns in bad faith.  They were not.  The concerns are legitimate, and you should not dismiss them as bad faith concerns without engaging them directly.  That's not productive.  Like I said, that we determine by consensus to override the concerns doesn't mean the people expressing them don't earnestly have those concerns.  Your job should not be to discredit those people or accuse them of acting in bad faith.  It should be to establish consensus that additional factors need to be taken into account.  -- Jayron 32 16:19, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a non-BLP opinion on the content which I've shared at the article talk page. In brief, I do support a very brief mention of the allegation. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:10, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given your statements above, where you stated that "Having now read BLP in full, I disagree with its application to dictators like Putin" you are clearly in no position to judge what is or isn't 'consensus' here. Not that it matters, since local consensus cannot overrule core Wikipedia policies. I have reverted your improper restoration of the disputed content prior to any agreement to do so, and suggest you make no further attempt to force the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You cherry picked a sentence from my post, grossly distorting my point of view, and made a personal attack on me in your edit summary . If you read my entire post above - especially the headline - you would understand from that I disagree with how BLP applies to Putin on these specific allegations. If you also read the TP discussion, you would also understand the context behind the sentence you quoted, as it was said by that BLPCRIME only applies to public figures who have been formally accused of a crime . I actually took that advice from Cullen, added high quality RS and moved it from the Personal life section to the Poisening of Litvinenko section . If you read all the comments here, there is clearly no consensus here that these allegations violate WP:BLP. CutePeach (talk) 05:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, lets talk about cherry-picking, shall we? Starting with the way the NYT article has been blatantly cherry-picked to support content that it unequivocally describes as "without any evidence". The NYT makes it entirely clear that it considers Litvinenko's claims to be unfounded, describing it as a case where "Foes of the Kremlin have sometimes picked up the same ugly club and used it to beat Mr. Putin". Said "ugly club" being the use of false allegations of paedophilia to discredit opponents. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are now making an argument of WP:DUE - which I am in complete agreement with - and it is exactly why I moved the allegation from the Personal life section to the Poisoning of Litvinenko section. However, this BLPN discussion is about the purported BLP violation in including Litvinenko's allegations against Putin, in the section about Putin alleged assassination of that man four months after he made those allegations. Can you explain why a paedophilia allegation is a BLP violation but a murder allegation isn't? CutePeach (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I am not making an argument of WP:DUE. I am directly stating that the way the NYT article was cited to support a claim which it directly stated was "without evidence" was a violation of WP:BLP policy (and WP:NPOV for that matter). AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As you may see from my first two edits, I put Litvinenko's accusation citing Global News, and Bukovsky's counter claim citing the NYT article, for WP:BALANCE. In the third edit , I added a second counter statement for BALANCE from the same NYT piece, as per 's suggestion . How exactly is adding two counter statements for BALANCE citing that NYT article a violation of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV? CutePeach (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cherry picking an article in such a manner to support a claim that it directly refutes is a clear and unambiguous violation of policy. If after all this time, and with all the effort people have put into trying to explain things to you, you are unable to understand why, I can only suggest that you would do well to avoid editing contentious articles on living persons in future.
 * And that is all I am going to say on the matter, at least until you give a direct and meaningful response to the question raised by Jayron32 earlier. How exactly did you conclude that there was a consensus here to include the disputed material, given that, by Jayron's count "there are about 6-7 people arguing against inclusion, and 2-3 arguing for inclusion"? You seem to have little support here, and nobody is required to respond endlessly to the same repeated arguments. A question was asked. It has been answered. WP:BLP policy applies to all living persons. Without exception. And you can't cherry-pick sources to get around policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no cherry picking, and no supporting of claims. What Litvinenko claimed was that Putin was a pedophile, and that he used his position as head of FSB to destroy evidence of it, and we did not put either of those claims in WP:WIKIVOICE, or omit any opposing views for WP:BALANCE. While the NYT article reports that Litvinenko made these claims without evidence - which we added to the article - this does not directly refute his claims, as you claim. CutePeach (talk) 14:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * AndyTheGrump, I did not say it was a policy. It is above all policies, as it is the reason for the existence of Wikipedia and still a worthy aspiration. If you don't like it, take it up with Jimbo, not me. If you want to be part of a more limited project, go there, because this isn't it. Jimbo has a vision which we should attempt to live up to. People of limited scope aren't needed here. Actually, all people who want to improve even the smallest parts of Wikipedia are welcome. I meant that those who want to limit the scope aren't needed. Their thinking is destructive. The success of Wikipedia has proven that Jimbo's vision was a real break with the old "limited by size and paper" mentality. What previously seemed like an impossible and foolish idea proved to be possible and grand. Get out of the old mindset.
 * Our purpose here is to give free access to "the sum of all human knowledge" mentioned in reliable sources. "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." Jimmy Wales. "A free encyclopedia encompassing the whole of human knowledge, written almost entirely by unpaid volunteers: Can you believe that was the one that worked?" Richard Cooke. "If I go looking for info, and Wikipedia doesn't have it, then Wikipedia has failed." Baseball Bugs That literally means "ALL" information, not just facts. That includes opinions, beliefs, lies, outrageously false accusations, conspiracy theories, pseudoscientific nonsense, etc. We are supposed to be inclusionist by nature. Wikipedia is not limited by size. If it has been said or written in a RS, it becomes potential content here. Although we don't treat different types of "human knowledge" in the same way, we still document its existence. If a topic is never mentioned in any RS, then it's not notable enough for an article or mention. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Valjean, I don't give a rats arse what you (or Jimbo for that matter, though very much doubt he'd support your arguments here) think 'our purpose' is. Wikipedia is governed by policies, as arrived at through many years, by thousands of contributors. Policies that make it absolutely clear that the mere existence of 'sources' are never sufficient grounds for inclusion of anything. If you want to create an indiscriminate garbage-dump of anything you can scrape from the internet, you will have to do so elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about some civility here? Seriously dude, I did not rape your mother! Really. I didn't. [Sarcasm stricken] I am not your enemy, and I'm not sure why you're throwing all this nasty vitriol at me, but you don't seem to understand my views very well at all. I've been here since 2003 and know my way around pretty well. My fingerprints are still, after all these years, in many of our most important policies, and I fully believe that our policies are not in conflict with the original goal of Wikipedia. They just tell us how to do it, and they should not be interpreted in ways that conflict with that original goal, and it certainly is not to create such a garbage dump. Just because something appears in a RS does not mean we include it. It is just "potential" content which we may reject, and if it is not found in RS, it isn't even "potential" content. Note I said "potential" above. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Your personal beliefs about Wikipedia (or anything else) are irrelevant. And if you don't like 'incivility', I suggest you stop filling this discussion with vacuous platitudes, and stick to questions relating to the application of policy. Policy, which, amongst other things, states that in discussions regarding content, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Consensus which isn't obtained by claims of being right because you allegedly wrote the rules. Or because Jimbo (or Baseball Bugs? really?) said something or other, making you right. That isn't 'civil' it is obnoxious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoah. Valjean, I think you may wish to reconsider the second sentence in your response. Like, quickly. ValarianB (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ValarianB, I have stricken the sarcasm. The response I got (and am still getting from Andy) to simply expressing an opinion on a talk page would have been appropriate if the stricken part had been true.
 * I have not disputed ONUS as a possible argument at all, and even if I had, such an uncivil response is still inappropriate. Andy doesn't have to respond to my comment if he doesn't think it's relevant. He could have chosen to just ignore it rather than voicing such an aggressive attack here. It creates a chilling environment. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Whereas writing ' People of limited scope aren't needed here' doesn't? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That has already been stricken as it was too easy to misunderstand. Here's what replaced it: People of limited scope aren't needed here. Actually, all people who want to improve even the smallest parts of Wikipedia are welcome. I meant that those who want to limit the scope aren't needed. Their thinking is destructive. The success of Wikipedia has proven that Jimbo's vision was a real break with the old "limited by size and paper" mentality. What previously seemed like an impossible and foolish idea proved to be possible and grand. Get out of the old mindset. That is directly related to WP:Not paper. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Go take your soapbox somewhere else. This project is governed by policy, arrived at by consensus of contributors. All contributors, not just those that watched Jimbo give a TED talk in 2005 or whatever and have been trying to create utopia-on-internet ever since. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you are making an argument of WP:UNDUE, and it doesn't explain the BLP violation. The Vladimir Putin article has an entire section about the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, so I think Litvinenko's paedophilia allegation is WP:DUE there as it is the main reason given by secondary sources for Putin's alleged hand in his assassination. The BLP question not only affects the Putin page, but also our article on Litvinenko, since BLP applies everywhere. I support Valjean's version of the Owen report above and I won't argue this further. CutePeach (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * you are making an argument of WP:UNDUE, and it doesn't explain the BLP violation. The Vladimir Putin article has an entire section about the Poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko, so I think Litvinenko's paedophilia allegation is WP:DUE there as it is the main reason given by secondary sources for Putin's alleged hand in his assassination. The BLP question not only affects the Putin page, but also our article on Litvinenko, since BLP applies everywhere. I support Valjean's version of the Owen report above and I won't argue this further. CutePeach (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I did some research. The allegation was first added to the Alexander Litvinenko article by in November 2006, expanded by  using the same source in December of that year , and Hodja Nasreddin then added the BBC article in March 2008 . The content has been in Wikipedia all this time, and the last edit was made by  in November 2018, removing a counter statement that previously cited a Daily Mail article . The RS/SYNTH concerns raised by  are null, considering the updated text with newer sources I and  added to the Vladimir Putin page   . Once the purported BLP issue has been addressed - which is what this noticeboard is for - we can then discuss any BALANCE and WEIGHT concerns with this 15-year-old text. CutePeach (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * my edit summary in the link you provide says "rpl [replaced] material per talk", indicating that i replaced it in the article after it had been previously been removed and after a talk page discussion. of course, i have no first-hand recall of this since it was 16 years ago, but you may want to check further back in the article history and on the contemporaneous talk page to find the original source.  tomasz.  16:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The topic of sexually explicit compromising material on Putin is first broached here by an anon user. The link to the Chechenpress is first introduced here by a different anon user. Someone BLPs it here. It is removed here. The first direct allegation appears here, added by user Infrogmation three days before the post of mine you quote above. Discussion of this appears here. Hope this helps you.  tomasz.  17:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Let's keep in mind that this isn't about alleging that Putin is a pedophile, but about a possible reason for the murder. The allegation is so offensive that it is understandable(!) that a murderous person like Putin would say "That's it. He's going too far. Let's get rid of him." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Calling him "murderous" is also a BLP violation because BLP applies on all namespaces and he hasn't been convicted of any murders. You should strike or it or rewrite your message. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 15:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to add a few of the thousands of RS which document that as an accurate description? Don't you know who he is? It's as accurate a description as calling Trump a serial liar. Those are not BLP violations as they are backed up by the weight of myriad RS, so many that we don't bother with providing refs each time we say it, although it used to be that way here. We used to be so sensitive about using the word "liar" about Trump that it was considered a BLP violation, but we're far beyond that now, and the same applies to Putin.
 * Just to clarify a linguistic distinction. Saying someone is "murderous" is not the same as saying they are a "murderer". It speaks to mentality. Putin has a murderous mentality. It is widely accepted that he thinks that way and that he has his enemies, critics, and journalists killed. (The list is growing longer all the time.) The last part amounts to accusing him of being responsible for the deaths of people, even if he is not the one who actually murdered them. US president Joe Biden called Putin a war criminal and "murderous dictator". See also List of journalists killed in Russia. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Strenuously disagree (see my comment below.) This is based on a misreading of WP:BLPCRIME. Describing a living person as having committed a crime for which they have not been convicted is something we have to be extremely careful about, but it is not forbidden, and part of the reason it is not forbidden is precisely so we can do so in situations like this, where the sources are overwhelming. I don't know if they're similarly overwhelming for the primary issue that this section is about, but Putin does, and has, murdered his political opponents. --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well put. We are not alleging that Putin is a pedophile. We just need to include Litvinenko's allegation as it goes toward a possible motive for his murder, a killing widely attributed to Putin's henchmen. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:24, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note that WP:BLPCRIME merely says that For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. It does not forbid including it outright, it just says that we have to think long and hard before doing so. To me this reads as indicating that extenuating circumstances can exist - especially in situations where there is overwhelming, extremely high-quality reliable sourcing saying flatly that someone is guilty of a crime, no sources of comparable quality contradicting it, and reasonable explanations for why a conviction cannot or would not appear. It isn't something to be done lightly, but BLPCRIME is not an absolute bar on describing unconvicted crimes people have committed in the article voice provided coverage of them is overwhelming enough and one-sided enough otherwise. I do not know if the "pedophile" aspect is sufficient, but I do strongly believe that Putin meets the threshold for "murder" - he has murdered his political opponents, and this is simple fact that is not contested by any serious source. --Aquillion (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course, WP:BLP apply to the page. And the subject is a public figure. Hence one should check Biographies_of_living_persons. It says: If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article. Sure, such thing as pedophilia is noteworthy and relevant, but how well is it documented? Personally I do know that the accusation is true (because I saw how the subject behaved with boys on various publicly available video), but this must be sufficiently documented in RS. Was it? This is something debatable and should be decided on talk page by WP:CONSENSUS. Please make an official RfC about it if you wish. As about accusations of war crimes, they are very well documented, there are no doubts about it. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_McKellow
Mr Mckellow was my uncle and I have been advised that he died on 30 April 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.140.19 (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. --Aquillion (talk) 04:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

rule of thumb on serial murders?
I keep seeing articles about serial murders at WP:PNT. I am extremely uninterested but the one I just looked at definitely was/is bad machine translation, albeit mostly understandable. (I got some of the low-hanging fruit as I was reading). Anyway, without doing a deep dive, the sourcing is -- meh. Analogous to what one might have seen for the Central Park Five. Mainstream rather sensational news. Do we even need these articles? People tend to come and yell at me about the things I translate, so I dislike doing this for articles I find pointless to begin with. I've been ignoring them for quite a long time and would like to find a reason to delete them, frankly. It's quite clear nobody else is going to fix them, and I also have notability questions. Can we find out who is fixated on these murders and ask them why? Suggestions welcome Elinruby (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The one I just looked at was Nadir Sedrati but I have seen several others, which all seem to be about members of minority groups, coincidentally. Elinruby (talk) 03:36, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to suggest that the 'rule of thumb' for translated articles about serial murderers would be not to touch them with a bargepole unless there was clear and unambiguous credible sourcing, given the obvious WP:BLP concerns. We have enough problems with WP:BLP violations as it is (a surprising number of contributors seem to think that being charged with something is evidence of guilt, for a start, as is evident from the numerous 'List of...' articles we have on the subject...) and given the lax standards I've seen on some (not all) non-English Wikipedias we surely can't always expect them to conform to our standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome, I feel validated. But the fact that they languish on PNT doesn’t keep them from existing; they are just tagged as rough translations. Should I add BLP and notability tags? AfD? Elinruby (talk) 05:06, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Any article that appears to label a named living individual as a serial murderer, without the necessary sourcing, would fall under WP:BLPREMOVE - which is to say any identifying information, and quite possibly even claims that murders had actually taken place, would need immediate removal. Which would quite possibly imply speedy deletion, if the individual is named in the title, as is often the case. We cannot continue to host articles containing gross violations of WP:BLP policy once they become apparent. If people want articles on such subjects, the onus is on them to provide the necessary sources first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here, here! (Clap, clap, clap) Zaereth (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I’m on board, believe me, esp since I suspect xenophobia. I have never done a speedy deletion though, so I may have specific questions. But as far as the translation part is concerned, they are not doing anything but clogging up the queue. And possibly some of them are bad enough for that to be an additional reason, come to think of it. Thanks, y’all. Elinruby (talk) 07:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I prodded three of these articles last night. This required notifying the original author,, who has now rewritten Nadir Sedrati and most likely the other two as well. The article is now in good English, which solves *my* immediate issue with it, but I don’t think the issues of lightly sourced BLP and failing WP:CRIME are addressed. I do see one respectable if somewhat sensationalist source (Libération) and some references to what might be an ok regional paper that I don’t know, and the references to a TV guide are gone, but replaced by the show itself, which will be difficult to verify. I am pretty sure there are still BLP violations, including speculation about the subject’s responsibility for murders for which he was not charged. The author’s user page says that serial killers is all he does, so there could be a lot of articles like this, and I just don’t see why we need them. These were sordid if particularly gory murders. It isn’t clear to me that they meet notability let alone BLP criteria for the English Wikipedia, and I would like somebody else to take a look. I am willing to look into this regional newspaper if it would help, but I think the lack of coverage in even French national press speaks to the subject’s notability. Elinruby (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Louis Poirson
Is this sufficiently cited? Notable? Le Nouvel Observateur is usually considered reliable. Liberation, opinionated but often accurate, like a less famous Rolling Stone perhaps. Le Parisien has an illustrious history but seems to have become a tabloid like the Daily Mail or the NY Post. I am not sure about the local paper but I have notability questions if that is the deciding factor. Elinruby (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think there's enough there to show they are notable and more sources are likely available. Serial killers generally get a pretty fair amount of coverage. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I am in this because these French serial killers are bad machine translations that are piling up in the WP:PNT French queue that only I ever work on, as far as I can tell. I am profoundly uninterested and question their notability as somebody who has lived in France. They might meet a threshold of notability for the French wikipedia, where readers would care about a crime in their backyards, presumably. But color me not interested in somebody who killed some hitchhikers in southern France in 1990 or whatever. Not going to put the time into fixing it when there is lots to do in Algerian and Congolese history that is in the end much much more important. It's simple triage. Not going to look for sources or fix it, and neither is the author apparently. Unless maybe I AfD each of these individually Elinruby (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Notability is independent of language, and we don't need English language sources. Machine translations are a problem though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, actually, as somebody who frequently works with foreign language sources and frequently has to defend them. However, context also matters, no? People care a lot more about serial murders that are not in another country. So I am positing that while he might as a French serial murder be notable in France, this doesn't necessarily extend to notability on the English wikipedia. I AfD'd the article mentioned above, btw, and the editor improved the English (but it took AfD for that to happen), and yet that article still accuses the subject of murders he was not convicted of, just for a start. The sourcing is now if anything a little worse than in this article. And I must admit that I find it a little disturbing that somebody is collating this stuff. I mean, I have read Truman Capote, and I get the interest to a point, but is this what Wikipedia is for? Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate, but serial killers are one of those things that attracts attention, which means stories and documentaries and articles, which means notability. I don't have the time to do a real once over on the article right now, but I'll try to get around to removing the BLPvio when I have the time, and take a look at the AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * the editor deleted the tags. All of them. This does get the articles out of the WP:PNT French queue, which was my particular issue with them, and finding out that there are a lot more of these articles, but although I don't usually swim in these waters, I think there are unaddressed BLP and notability issues. I am quite happy to leave the matter in your hands though; as I said I am very extremely not interested, and there is machine translation out there that *should* be rescued and imho would be a better use of my time. Elinruby (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's an extremely bad-looking WP:BLP. If it's a notable topic, fine, but all uncited text should be nuked and only be added back with BLP-acceptable refs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert Sarver
The Philanthropic and advocacy work reads a lot like a self-written exercise for good PR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.17.6.142 (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of the section has now been removed since they were without independent RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Vicki Iseman and the John McCain lobbyist controversy revisited
I have discussed this today with a few editors personally but think it might be wise to put this on Wikipedia's radar. Over 14 years ago the New York Times wrote an article which seemed to imply Senator John McCain (at the time the leading Republican party presidential nominee candidate) was involved in some way with a female DC lobbyist. At the time an affair was implied in the NYT but not so stated, the focus of the article concerning the special working relationship between them. Wikipedia started covering this as the sources came out (in the middle of the night, as memory serves). We excised the controversy from the the BLP, creating the current controversy page, but at AfD the Iseman article ultimately was overturned/kept in order to provide the subject positive coverage to balance the exclusively negative material alleged in the controversy page. I'm certainly not entertaining notions of re-litigating those processes. After Iseman sued the Times, the two parties settled with no money changing hands. A representative of the New York Times actually posted a statement on our article talk page, a step I've not often seen from an involved RS.

At the controversy page, two AFDs At the Iseman page two AFDs and two DRVs
 * Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy (keep; 2/2008)
 * Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, February 2008 (keep; 1/2009)
 * Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (no consensus, 2/2008)
 * Deletion review/Log/2008 March 1 (endorsed, 3/2008)
 * Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman (2nd nomination) (delete, 4/2008)
 * Deletion review/Log/2008 May 4 (overturned, 5/2008)

Today an involved party, Steve Schmidt (in a Substack post) has confessed to being aware of and complicit in the coverup of the affair, which is jaw-dropping news. Schmidt is one of the people most recently falsely accused of pedophilia (this time by Megan McCain) and after a twitter war between the two, he posted this confession, excoriating and insulting McCain. In posts to two admins I've requested adding the pages to watchlists. Since this controversy has all the elements of great personality bashing (sex, politics, journalism, resentment, and a former The View panelist), I expect MSNBC to cover it tonight and everyone else to cover the coverage tomorrow. So far I'm seeing the NYMag and Salon move forward but the bigs are waiting or still writing. I'm not calling for any action as of this date stamp, but thought it might be wise to raise general awareness before these articles are mentioned in media (as I've seen already once today) and before the influx of partisans starts to relitigate it themselves, as have already started. BusterD (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * New movie with Woody Harrelson, perhaps? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Themis Prodromakis
New article has been drafted here by an editor at University of Edinburgh. Have been advised of this and informed the editor that this will need Conflict of Interest review. They are a new editor and were not aware of the COI guidelines, or the WP:GNG guidelines for that matter. In any case have advised them that the article needs citations throughout and wiki links and to comply with COI and WP:GNG. As I myself am employed by the university, I want to be very transparent here about the article and recuse myself from any further involvement in favour of more independent COI/GNG review. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:44, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Mondo
Someone change the name from: Brad Gesimondo, commonly known as Brad Mondo to: Brek Gesimondo, commonly known as Brad Mondo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.133.146 (talk) 19:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I've reverted the vandalism. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

RingID
There's been a slow-burning edit war at this orphan article since it was first brought to my attention in Sockpuppet investigations/Benjamin.Olivier/Archive, between one editor with a clear COI in favor of the subject, and a number with apparent POVs against (although I'd hesitate to assume COI). After the COI editor,, finally escalated to legal threats, I blocked indefinitely both for NLT and UPE. However, keeping DOLT in mind, I'm aware that there's content in the article that reflects poorly on living people, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the quality of South Asian tech industry sources to assess their reliability, so I bring the matter here for review.

Also, I know this isn't AN, but since I have an audience: My past edits to this article have been in that gray area between administrative and content, removing promotional edits in one direction and BLPvio in the other. I felt that they landed far enough on the administrative side of that area that it was acceptable for me to block, but I welcome any critique. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 15:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME is indeed an issue and it looks like Firefangledfeathers addressed it by removing their explicit identities, but I'm not sure if the remaining detail is still too excessive under the policy. It should focus on the company rather than what happened to the people. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Wayne Siegel
Ran across this BLP article Wayne Siegel. Initially I was going to place a simple unreferenced header tag; but then thought perhaps the article itself might warrant an AfD nom since I could not find reason for inclusion even under general notability. Does this line: "awarded a three-year grant in composition from the Danish Art Council" meet with WP guidelines for WP:MUSICBIO? Tried searching online for other notable mentions. Maineartists (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Maryanne Demasi
This article has been tagged since 2016 with Undue weight, and concerns have been raised on the talk page that nearly the entire article is centered on negative reception of two episodes of Catalyst (TV program). While no doubt these episodes were controversial and received press coverage, is the structure and tone of the current article acceptable per WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, etc.? Does the subject even warrant a distinct biography, or merely perhaps a redirect to Catalyst (TV program)? I'm not advocating for white-washing, but I believe the the opposite of white-washing is shit-piling: taking only the most titillating and controversial aspects of a subject, and downplaying or ignoring other coverage. And even if an individual happened to be somehow be independently notable only and entirely for 2 controversial TV episodes, I think there are much better ways to write and structure such an article. Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest trimming the article back to focus on the person rather than the Catalyst shows, and also trim back anything that's not covered by independent sources to avoid acting as a soapbox for her or her critics.
 * The Catalyst (TV program) article appears to cover the controversy about the shows in enough detail. --Hipal (talk) 01:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Odumeje
The above article, a (purported) biography about a living individual, a Nigerian clergyman, has recently been mentioned at WP:ANI (see - permanent link ). Discussions regarding the article creator are probably best dealt with there, but meanwhile it would seem advisable to do something about the blatant violations of WP:BLP policy found in the article, since it clearly needs editing - with a nice sharp axe.

As a flavour of the issues, see the section entitled Threat to kill anyone writing negative things about him, which tells readers that Odumeje claimed he had spiritual powers and would kill anyone who wrote anything negative about him no matter how much they concealed their identity, he claimed he could spiritually tell who they were and would proceed to kill them spiritually. The sole source cited for this allegation being Opera News. Opera News describes itself as "a completely localised and personalised news app", one that delivers "AI-curated content according to your interests". The website, whatever it is, clearly doesn't meet WP:RS, and the article being cited for the Odumeje 'biography' is written in broken English by one 'Semiemmy2 (self media writer)', whatever that is supposed to mean. At a guess, I's suggest it probably means 'some random dude on the internet pretending to be a journalist'.

I'm tempted to deal with the problem myself, but given my involvement with the ANI discussions should probably leave it to others to sort out, provided it is dealt with promptly. If I was to edit it, I strongly suspect that the end result would be an article consisting entirely of a statement that 'Odumeje is a Nigerian clergyman [citation needed]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I have done some work here, with a ceremonial axe. Possibly more to come, there is "one" decent source....but it's late, now.  Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect!  03:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Mike Crapo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Crapo

It is so obvious that the selection of details about Mr. Crapo included in this article are design to paint him in a less than favorable light. I would suggest that it be edited to include only general information about his origins, education, family life, etc. All of the political stuff and the inclusion of his DUI arrest are obvious character assassination attempts. If a political history is to be included, it should be comprehensive and not cherry-picked as is currently the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayniack (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * All of the political stuff in an article about a US Senator? What are the specific concerns? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've condensed the Drunk driving arrest section as it was previously a bit lengthy. Meatsgains (talk</b>) 15:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but IMO it should be condensed even further: It probably warrants no more than 2 sentences. Wikipedians tend to be terrible at distinguishing verifiability from encyclopedic noteworthiness, not understanding WP:PROPORTION or WP:RECENTISM. It's worse with politicians: see also Jeffrey Wood, whom apparently, per Wikipedia, has done absolutely nothing of note besides go to college, get married, and drive while intoxicated more than once. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Animalparty, has Wood done anything else of note? Fences  &amp;  Windows  08:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Animalparty, has Wood done anything else of note? Fences  &amp;  Windows  08:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Mr. Bond (musician)
Austrian data protection and privacy laws do not allow the full name of accused to be revealed in Austrian legal system, especially if they have not been convicted or sentenced yet. There is no verdict yet either. The press reports that the identity of the captive alleged to be Mr. Bond was doxxed by means not conform to Austrian Data Protection Act. Please remove the defamatory article about this individual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weimaren (talk • contribs)
 * I've done some cleaning up, and I expect there needs to be another comb through. I also think it's quite likely that this article wouldn't pass WP:BLP1E. More eyes would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * did some revdels, and got oversight involved. I think the article is ok now, but I plan on looking into an AfD tomorrow. Thanks Tamzin and unidentified oversighter. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, while the article had only mentioned this in the infobox previously, Bond was convicted and sentenced, and I've clarified this with a source that was already in the article. Also, obligatory reminders that: 1) Austrian law doesn't decide what is published on Wikipedia, nor does any legal system except those the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to, and 2) "defamation" is not a synonym for "unflattering content"; if someone is a neo-Nazi, we're allowed to call them a neo-Nazi. But yeah, that said, under our own policies there weren't reliable sources giving his full name, so that's been oversighted. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, while the article had only mentioned this in the infobox previously, Bond was convicted and sentenced, and I've clarified this with a source that was already in the article. Also, obligatory reminders that: 1) Austrian law doesn't decide what is published on Wikipedia, nor does any legal system except those the Wikimedia Foundation is subject to, and 2) "defamation" is not a synonym for "unflattering content"; if someone is a neo-Nazi, we're allowed to call them a neo-Nazi. But yeah, that said, under our own policies there weren't reliable sources giving his full name, so that's been oversighted. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 01:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The deletion of so many revisions has made me unable to review the numerous and varied changes which User:ScottishFinnishRadish made to the article including the deletion of sources and text entries etc. This creates an especially unfortunate situation if the article will soon be nominated for deletion. Is there any way that this can be remedied? Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the unverified primary court document, which was hosted on a random upload site, and I removed the interview from the unreliable counter-currents site, as well as any text attributed to them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I reject your designation of Counter-Currents as 'unreliable'. Indeed it is the only source we have which includes statements from Bond's supporters/associates as well as the man himself and is necessary to clarify a number of things and specific figures which would otherwise be unavailable. Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Then find secondary, reliable sources covering the interview. Cherry picking individual statements from primary sources on dubious websites is WP:OR. We need secondary sources discussing what is important and what needs clarification, not deciding on such things ourselves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You continue to assert that Counter-Currents Publishing is somehow 'dubious'. Perhaps their political leanings are dubious, but I have seen no evidence which would lead me to believe that they would publish false information, or fabricate an interview, or do anything which would make them an unreliable source. And as far as my knowledge there are no secondary sources discussing this interview. I have never heard of this standard before. This policy page says that primary sources are acceptable, but that interpretation requires a secondary source. I did not attempt to interpret the interview, but only to include factual statements and quotations. And I simply cherry-picked what I believed to be most important and what had not already been discussed. If you want to include other facts and figures from the source you are more than welcome. Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 20:22, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, a source that publishes If you are as adept as I am at picking Jews out of a police lineup, Running an anti-corruption campaign in Latin America is like running on an anti-gravity ticket... We didn’t ask why, but we all knew the answer: The Mexican army would still be getting out of some fat whore’s bed three weeks after the commencement of hostilities, and although Guatemala has an army (Costa Rica hasn’t had one since 1948), the last Guatemalan soldier I saw was smoking a good-sized joint. There would be no war, just a bar fight with some smuggled dogs., There are moons of Jupiter that are smaller than this woman. Were she to accidentally die during a charity mission to Africa, an entire village would be able to feed off her corpse for a year. is obviously not fit for use in a BLP article. Also, an interview, being a primary source, needs secondary sources to show that it is WP:DUE for inclusion. Per your policy link, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. There is no way this is reputable publishing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Some random nobodies getting interviewed by a niche political site is almost never WP:REPUTABLE or WP:DUE or WP:BLP-compliant enough for Wikipedia. That's true even when they're not neo-Nazis. If independent, reliable sources consider the interview important enough to mention, then maybe we can as well. But even then we still wouldn't use the source to "clarify" findings from actual reliable sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * He's named by the reputable Counter Extremism Project, which we use as a source in 22 existing articles. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Reputable? There's bias in the very name! Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate to use an activist organization's press release to name an anonymous BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, better attribution is needed. It is unfortunate that mainstream media outlets do not cover these sorts of stories. Leroy Patterson IV (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * As the Oversighter who suppressed the inclusion of his name in the article and who got a second opinion from another oversighter, I'd suggest a single source (even if RS) is insufficient to overcome the fact that overwhelmingly RS, even those post-conviction, are not using his full name and thus the name would, to quote from WP:OSPOL, continue to be an example of a  Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Mark Thomas
I want to check about how to handle information on Mark Thomas' marriage. A tweet I won't link for BLP reasons to led me to his bio, where I found that in January an account named User:Mark Thomas comedian added his wife, marriage year, end of marriage year, and increased his number of children by one. I have username softblocked that account. I have verified his wife's name and their year of marriage, but not the different number of children or the end of the marriage. Should the unverifiable information be revdelled, if nobody else can verify it? Fences &amp;  Windows  17:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , in my opinion, an unreferenced assertion that somebody has "X" children should just be reverted and that revdelling something so banal is not necessary. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That diff does not show anything being added about the wife, which was in fact added in Special:Diff/932117465 by a completely different account over a year before. Uncle G (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, I was being dim when looked at that diff. Yikes, our standards are pretty shoddy when such unsourced additions are overlooked for so long. To spell out my concern, though I believe he was divorced it's not verifiable, but more importantly adding a child in those circumstances has negative implications. I'm fine to just leave it if no-one else has concerns. Fences  &amp;  Windows  11:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Age fabrication
Overwhelming amount of unreferenced WP:BLP information. Rewrite, or AfD perhaps? --Hipal (talk) 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed some of the most obvious problems. Probably does need a rewrite, as it stands now it's basically List of people who misrepresented their age at some point in time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete. Other than Wikipedia and sites mirroring Wikipedia, I find no good, reliable source that uses nor gives any definition of the term "age fabrication". "Age hardening", yes, but nothing from any books, news, scientific or psychological journals, or reputable websites. Zip. This is pure OR and synth. Zaereth (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at a possible AfD, I see some merging possibilities. At the top of the Age_fabrication section, there are links to four articles or article subsections:
 * Age requirements in gymnastics in
 * Figure skating in
 * Cheating in baseball in
 * These appear considerably better referenced than the Age fabrication article. If there's related content in Age fabrication not in these related articles, then it should be merged regardless, as Age fabrication should be summarizing only. --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There is probably a lot of salvageable info there. The lede is pure OR. It's a made-up term by the author, and we can't have an article on a term we made up. That would be name fabrication. (See what I did there?) The term is awkward, because it implies something entirely different. "Fabrication" is most commonly synonymous with construction. That's why when I first saw it I was thinking, "How can you build something using age?" It comes off as nonsensical. Now, "age falsification" may be a different story. That's clear and may possibly have some sources out there.
 * But that brings us to the next problem. Such an article should be notable enough to make a decent article that is something better than a dictionary definition. Like age hardening, we should have a lot of very good sources in my opinion. And we should use examples found in those sources, and not make it a place to name everybody we thinkm, personally, should be used as an example.
 * The rest of it should go into the articles of each individual subject, NPOV withstanding, where it can be properly weighed and balanced with the rest of the respective article. This is, after all, information on living people, and list articles shouldn't be used to circumvent due weight in my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The rest of it should go into the articles of each individual subject, NPOV withstanding, where it can be properly weighed and balanced with the rest of the respective article. This is, after all, information on living people, and list articles shouldn't be used to circumvent due weight in my opinion. Zaereth (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

This started out with a slang name age fudging and was renamed in 2005. When talking about enlisting in World War One (and three prior wars, not even mentioned in this article), the U.S. Congress used the word "misrepresentation". There do exist biographies and suchlike that use "fudge" and "fabricate", and this is a perfectly acceptable sense of the word "fabrication". Of course the article doesn't mention Florence during the Mediaeval period, either. Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Volodymyr Zelenskyy
I think this page needs some attention because one of users just made this posting about "Neo-Nazi". This content is based on unreliable sources. Note that the first reference in the posting by the user ([1]) is actually a copy from RT (TV network) as shown at the bottom of the linked page. The user is currently editing the BLP page to include various information that is not necessarily due. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Seema Verma
I am requesting help to make the article Seema Verma conform to BLP and NPOV. For some time editors have been warring over this. When I first edited it in Dec 2021, the article was basically a political hit job, as noted by User:Marquardtika, who placed a NPOV tag on it in November, but the tag was removed without any discussion. I have re-inserted the tag today, and asked (again) for a discussion. I should point out that one criticism of my edits I agreed with, and changed the article to reflect it (re her tenure length). My last post, captured in the version [here] updates the bio and adds non-disputed, non-controversial material and balance. My article includes a lengthy section on criticisms, which I think drones on and on and is still not NPOV. Unfortunately, political bias is likely at play here. For example, mentioning in the opening paragraph that Verma okpposed ACA is a throwaway line, since that was the official posiiton of the administratation. For a comparison, check out Alex Azar, for whom Verma worked. His wiki bio looks NPOV and balanced, and doesn't criticize him for opposing the ACA in the opening paragraph. Here is the [talk page discussion]. Thanks for looking into this.W21040tx (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)


 * --Hipal (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some poor references. I removed some rather blatant promotion and soapboxing.
 * It's not clear what NPOV problems there are, as the references overall look very good. --Hipal (talk) 17:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's been further cleanup by
 * Partial protection might help given the ip editing going on. --Hipal (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 Buffalo mass shooting
Need eyes on this article for any number of reasons, BLP being a prominent one. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Amanda Tenfjord
Amanda Tenfjord is subject to repeated edits from at least 2 users (Honestbro.32 and Panos3456) to change her birth place to Greece based on unreliable sources. Neither of them are responding to comments made on their Talk pages. They are citing Greek newspapers and a greek talk show where she promotes her entry in the Eurovision contest. She says she was born in Greece in the video, but that can be to simply avoid having to explain that her Norwegian mother gave birth to her in Norway shortly before moving to Greece to be with the greek father. I have found newer Norwegian news articles where it's stated that she was born in Norway.

The article is already reliably sourced with a reference to a Norwegian hospital record about the birth from a local Norwegian newspaper from 1997. This is stored digitally in the database of the National Library of Norway, and I have confirmed that the information is there. I can send/share the file if needed. Kimern9 (talk) 12:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Nikocado Avocado
This article is mostly false, and has been translated in multiple languages it seems. He's a YouTuber who has crafted a trainwreck persona for views, and therefore what he says about himself is unreliable. It's obvious enough watching his videos, but he also brags about making it all up. The article cites low-grade journalism pieces that source his own videos as fact (again, it's not reliable) or what he's told the journalist (with no fact checking). It's locked, so I can't edit it. --Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Courtesy link to discussion of the specific problems you identified: Talk:Nikocado Avocado/Archive 1 Endwise (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Which specific assertions and sources are you disputing? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also not clear on which assertions you are disputing. Upon initial glance, the page appears reliably sourced but happy to do some digging if you are able to provide specifics. Meatsgains (<b style="color:#5F9EA0">talk</b>) 00:21, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's one:
 * "On September 18, 2021, Perry stated that he had fractured his ribs, while sneezing. A doctor's diagnosis showed that he had broken three of his left ribs."
 * There's a footnote to a Business Insider article, which just reports what he said in a video. "In a follow-up video, 'My diagnosis has arrived,' he said that he had broken three ribs on his left side and that he was taking steroids and other medications." Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 05:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. It's been changed now. If I can withdraw this notice, I'll do that. It seems like most of what can be addressed, has been. Thanks to the editors who helped. Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 02:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There continue to be recurring BLP issues at this article and more eyes would be appreciated. One ongoing concern is how to summarize a conflict Nikocado Avocado got into with another YouTuber. In the aftermath, he claimed that the whole thing was faked for views. There's now an editing dispute about whether we should say that he "claimed" this or "revealed" this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What has he done to be trustworthy, ever? He has a pattern of this behavior going back to his vegan youtubing days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVDLNkRrX3Y). If the Stephanie Soo thing is encyclopedic, then that controversy probably is too. In recent videos he's also been talking about the Amber Heard trial, and what a liar she is, and how we shouldn't "believe all women." More than once he loops this rant into "I had this happen to me with a certain Youtuber." If they planned it for publicity (as he's claimed), then why would he be mad about it? Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What has he done to be trustworthy, ever? He has a pattern of this behavior going back to his vegan youtubing days (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVDLNkRrX3Y). If the Stephanie Soo thing is encyclopedic, then that controversy probably is too. In recent videos he's also been talking about the Amber Heard trial, and what a liar she is, and how we shouldn't "believe all women." More than once he loops this rant into "I had this happen to me with a certain Youtuber." If they planned it for publicity (as he's claimed), then why would he be mad about it? Itsjustwaterweight (talk) 04:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

BIKRAM SHAHI
thumb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.100.87 (talk) 03:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

BALEN SHAH
International Nepal 2013–2015,[1][2] and represented Nepal at the Manhunt International Competition held at the Shenzhen Haiya Grand Theatre in Shenzhen, China in October 2016.[3] Shahi is also the winner of the D Cine Award 2015 for Best Actor in a Negative Role for the movie Hasiya. He is now a television personality as well. He is a famous gang leader of the popular Nepali adventure reality show Himalaya Roadies. He is associated with this show since 3rd season of this franchise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thakuri736 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

List of scientific misconduct incidents
This is a misleading article which violates the living persons policy.

There are statements that indicate a specific person committed scientific misconduct, yet in many cases, it was not the person listed, but an employee. The maximum one can claim here is that it happened in the group of. Also in many cases (not all), the person listed here actually self reported when they found out that a member of the team had committed misconduct. They also withdrew the manuscript. Note also that the whole story is not always wrong, but one experiment may be forged by the employee (technician, student, postdoc). It is highly unfair and also misconduct in the true sense of the word to not distinguish between cases where misconduct occurred in a lab and all proper measures were taken, and those where the PI systematically conducted fraud. as may have possibly been done in this case www.science.org/content/article/task-force-uncovers-abundant-fraud-german-lab Also note that in science, fraud will be uncovered, since the knowledge building is placed upon other peoples findings, if the basis is wrong, the issue will be traced and corrected, on the way fraud will be uncovered.

The article should be removed or thoroughly researched and classified into cases where a person who is listed is not falsely accused as done here!

An example of poor research! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfromm (talk • contribs) 00:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At a glance, there's enough that looks questionable in the article that a careful review is needed. --Hipal (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Courtesy link to previous related discussion on the Fringe theories noticeboard. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * By the looks of Special:Diff/1054081173/1054410078 and Talk:List of scientific misconduct incidents, JoJo Anthrax should be aware of this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 07:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, Uncle G. As pointed out above, a fairly recent discussion involving several, long-term editors in good standing resulted (correctly, IMO) not in the article being deleted, but substantially trimmed, with subject notability (operationally defined as the subject having a WP article) a near requirement for inclusion. It is axiomatic that every article on WP can/does benefit from review, and if, as suggested by Hipal, there truly is enough that looks questionable in the article, that questionable content should be identified and addressed appropriately. Perhaps Hipal will conduct such a review, discuss it at the article Talk page, and edit the article accordingly? I will do so, too, and I hope others will, because evaluating the article on a case-by-case basis is a positive exercise that is consistent with the earlier discussion and helps achieve the encyclopedia's goals. Having edited the article in the past, I will note with respect to WP:BLP that most, if not all, entries on that page are (or at least were) multiply-referenced to reliable sources. Lastly, perhaps the OP of this section merits a certain review as well. They above make broad, general complaints about the article without presenting a single, specific example to support their claims of violations of BLP policy, or "misleading" or "falsely accused" content. Embracing all the available WP:AGF, it strikes me as highly...unusual, that af editor's second ever edit to WP would be here. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 19:53, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As I indicated, I just glanced at the article. Glad it's been getting the attention it needs. Because BLP sets such high standards on such content, carefully chosen inclusion criteria might help, indicated in the article and documented on the talk page. --Hipal (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Explicitly adding inclusion criteria to the article lede (e.g., entrants should have a pre-existing WP article; multiple RS are needed for each entrant/case) would definitely help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Jenny Durkan
Hi, there are some serious issues in the article about the former mayor of Seattle, Jenny Durkan, in the 2013 police informant incident subsection. Note: I have a personal and previous professional connection to Jenny Durkan. The present language in this subsection is filled with distortions and WP:COATRACKING. It implies that Durkan was aware of and oversaw the use of a convicted sexual predator as an informant in the case – something which is false.
 * --Hipal (talk) 00:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I believe following sentences should be deleted:

The FBI and SPD had used a convicted pedophile, Robert Childs, as a paid informant to infiltrate terrorist and other organizations. Childs and Seattle Police detective Samuel DeJesus deleted over 400 messages from Childs's phone before handing the evidence over to Durkan's office, which presiding judge James Robart called "at-best sloppy". Durkan defended using Childs as an informant, saying, "It's not the saints who can bring us the sinners." Childs later said, "After the arrests were made, I was expecting to receive my pardon...Instead, I was told that they couldn't do that for me. What they offered me was money." Childs had also attempted to infiltrate several far-left organizations in Seattle as a paid informant. These sentences concern the decision by the FBI and SPD (not Durkan) to recruit and run a convicted pedophile as an informant and, a judge’s criticism of the deletion of phone messages by the informant and a Seattle police detective (not Durkan.) Neither of these events are about Durkan. She was not responsible for recruiting and running the criminal informant. That was the FBI and Seattle Police Department. Please see |Seattle Times and |Miami Herald. The language here tries to make it seem like she was involved by quoting her colorful observation to a reporter to the effect that informants are often “sinners” not “saints.” In the second paragraph about the police informant’s expectations, the use of the word “they” makes it seem like the informant is referring, in part, to Durkan. He is not. He is talking about the FBI. Durkan is not even mentioned in the source. The following sentence about the informant and left wing groups has nothing whatsoever to do with Durkan or this terrorism prosecution, Second, since this section should about her prosecution of the terrorists, not the FBIs use of informants, the subsection header should change from: “2013 police informant incident” to “2013 Terrorism Prosecution” Finally, the subsection should contain a new sentence explaining her office secured guilty pleas, since this should be about the prosecutions, not the FBI’s use of a police informants. Suggestion: Durkan’s office secured guilty pleas from Mujahidh and Abdul-Latif, who received 17 and 18 year sentences, respectively. Thanks for your consideration. 1920sportsfan (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Pedro Pascal

 * --Hipal (talk) 00:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Pedro Pascal

Another godforsaken round of edit warring... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4580:94C0:D0E7:8426:CE20:23B4 (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It was definitely good of Lard Almighty to trim that down, because it was way too much detail about his father's affairs. We don't want to make this some guilt-by-association thing in appearance. The problem I have with what's left is it doesn't really show relevance to the subject. I see on the talk page the argument was made, "Do you think it didn't have an effect on his life?" To that, I would say, we're not supposed to include info based on what we think. Who knows how it affected the subject's life. If there are sources where the subject has talked about the effect on his life, then we have something we can use, but otherwise it seems like irrelevant info about a non-notable person that makes it look like we're visiting the sins of the father on the son. If we keep it, we should give a good reason why --in the article-- so the reader will know what effect it had, if any. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note, I reported to UAA for having a disruptive username. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zaereth. Also, be alert to similar edit history at Lux Pascal. It's possible their father might eventually warrant more discussion in some article (probably not yet his own stand-alone biography), but most sources fail to even connect the father to the more notable children (albeit the bulk of the father's notoriety and news coverage seems to have occurred mostly before the careers of his children blew up). If secondary sources don't connect the relevance of one biography to another, then neither should Wikipedia (beyond basic info like identifying name and occupation of parent(s), which is fairly standard procedure for biographies). --Animalparty! (talk) 02:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anything there now is WP:UNDUE. Other things about his parents are mentioned, even though they don't directly affect Pascal, including that his mother is the cousin of another notable person. The fact that his father moved back to Chile (with Pedro and Lux remaining in New York) definitely had an effect on Pascal, and he has spoken about it. There is nothing WP:UNDUE about mentioning why his parents had to move back. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have now added a NY Times ref where Pascal discusses his legal issues. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be necessary mention that the family moved back to Chile. Whether it's necessary to mention the scandal is unclear, especially since there's nothing in the current version of our article to suggest it's the reason they moved back with the father saying it was to take care of his ailing mother. Whether people want to believe the father doesn't seem particularly germane to the article on the son. Nil Einne (talk) 10:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Several reliable sources say that he moved back because he was facing charges in the US, e.g. this one. Therefore there is no WP:BLP concern about mentioning it as the reason. We mention the reason why Balmaceda left Chile. This is no different. The article is actually very WP:NPOV as it says simply that Balmaceda left the US, while many sources (including the one above, which I have now added to the article) use words like "fled". Lard Almighty (talk) 10:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the "ailing mother" excuse since it was sourced to an article that does not even mention Pascal. The presumption of privacy for family members under WP:BLPNAME is strong, and there should be explicit connection with Pascal in the sources for it to be in his article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Kathy Barnette

 * --Hipal (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I created a draft recently for Kathy Barnette, an American politician running in the primary for the 2022 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania. It was moved into article space less than an hour so so ago. The primary is today. It is possible that potential voters may look at this article as the polls are open until 8pm. I am worried it may turn into an attack page. Barnette has a history of controversial statements that should be detailed throughly, but very little of her overall biography has been fleshed out. I would appreciate any help or oversight as I will be somewhat busy until later and unable to regularly check the article. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why her biography hasn't been fleshed out is because there are no sources about it - she herself refuses to answer questions per several reliable sources, but this rather in depth piece explains why the best. Of course we shouldn't be providing her campaign material, we're not an ancillary campaign headquarters for anyone but we also can't play with kid gloves just because it's an election day - this is what she's notable for, not for being a candidate for office or an author. PRAXIDICAE💕  21:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I remember you were the editor who nominated Tracey Medeiros for deletion claiming there were no reliable sources for her. That wasn’t true. There have been plenty of pieces including this extensive one from Politico two years ago: . Thriley (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And what exactly does this have to do with the subject matter, ? PRAXIDICAE💕  21:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You stated “The reason why her biography hasn't been fleshed out is because there are no sources about it.” I don’t think you did a deep look for source material that was published more than a month or two ago. There’s plenty out there going back to her run for Congress, including a story about some kind of lawsuit she filed. Thriley (talk) 00:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji
Various editors have continuously attempted to connect a controversial individual to the subject of this article via tenuous links in 2011 over the years, and I don't want to get into an edit war. Other eyes appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igarashi.torren (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Igarashi.torren was previously reminded on the Angana Chatterji Talk page against making dubious edits. Igarashi.torren has also previously declared a conflict of interest in relation to the topic. Prime facie it appears that Igarashi.torren is trying to block important factual information about Chaterji. Chaterji's association with Ghulam Nabi Fai (convicted by a US court) is extremely noteworthy and widely reported by reputable media organisations. See link below. Furthermore, Igarashi.torren is also deleting the official reason stated for Chatterji's dismissal, i.e. falsifying grades etc. Thus, Igarashi.torren's edits must be undone and Igarashi.torren must be given another admonition in addition to that given earlier.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/the-man-behind-pakistani-spy-agencys-plot-to-influence-washington/246000/ https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-isi-vetted-indians-on-ghulam-nabi-fai-list-of-invitees-1576089 https://www.indiatoday.in/magazine/nation/story/20110801-us-based-isi-agent-ghulam-nabi-fai-746997-2011-07-22 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow_comments/9340663.cms?from=mdr

Tatsuro22 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

More eyes please! Tatsuro's reading of the Atlantic article is incorrect, especially around finances and constitutes BLP violation. Also: a conference attended by many people more than 10 years ago is not noteworthy and seems like a tenuous way to link to someone controversial, something other editors have tried to do in the past and seems like a long-running campaign. Thank you for any help. Torren (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Halp. Continued BLP violation via a bad misreading of the 10-year old Atlantic article, on a tenuous connection which I do not believe is noteworthy. More eyes appreciated! Thank you. Torren (talk) 23:06, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * News incidents which did not made controversy or related to controversy is again inserted in controversy section by Tatsuro22 with sub headings to highlight the individual to look negative. No reference is calling it as controversy101.50.2.74 (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * News incidents which did not made controversy or related to controversy is again inserted in controversy section by Tatsuro22 with sub headings to highlight the individual to look negative. No reference is calling it as controversy101.50.2.74 (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Murder of Natalie Connolly
Article seems to need some major work starting with the title as it refers to a murder but the text makes it clear the conviction of the I assume still living perpetrator was for manslaughter. While the verdict was controversial this clearly doesn't comply with BLP. I find the content distressing enough that I'm not sure I can be bothered getting directly involved myself but maybe someone else will. Nil Einne (talk) 06:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It should b moved to Death of Natalie Connolly and references to murder should be changed to death or manslaughter as appropriate to the context. Lard Almighty (talk) 06:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (violence and deaths) suggests killing of. BTW, I should clarify that while the article title is the obvious problem, it's perhaps one I could barely stomach getting involved in by starting an WP:RM. A wider problem is the article text. For example, the first paragraph uses murder in two successive sentences if this was an undisputed murder, is probably excessive but also something which is an easier fix. But then the third sentence seems clearly worded towards a certain conclusion which while I have great sympathy with, likely isn't compliant with NPoV. But it's also the sort of thing I find too distressing to really want to deal with. Nil Einne (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * One rewrite and one page move later, hopefully have less BLP concerns. Still a distressing lede, but not sure any way around that.Slywriter (talk) 12:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

John Campbell
Wikipedia could be liable for defaming Dr. John Campbell. The Wikipedia entry:

"John Lorimer Campbell[3] is a British YouTuber and retired nurse educator who has posted YouTube video commenting on the COVID-19 pandemic since January 2020 on his channel, Dr. John Campbell. Some of his videos contained misinformation, such as claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety.[5][6][7]. "

Wikipedia was asked repeatedly to remove the statement: "Some of his videos contained misinformation" but refuses to do so. The statement is defamatory of Dr. Campbell's character and can affect negatively his reputation, career and financial well-being. And yet, the statement has no place in a Wikipedia entry. Keeping that statement would mean, every Wikipedia entry about someone who has posted videos would most probably require that same statement. Wikipedia entries on CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC, etc., as these companies, at one time or another, whether on purpose or inadvertently, have posted videos which contain misinformation. And yet we do not have that statement on their entries.

Second, the so-called rationale for saying his videos contain misinformation, i.e., "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted, repeatedly making false claims about the use of the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment,[4] and spreading misleading commentary about vaccine safety" -- may not be "misinformation" as the full picture/complete data on those matters have not been gathered. It's very possible that some or all of those are proven true. For example, for the first statement "claiming that deaths from COVID-19 have been over-counted", hospitals in the Philippines, during the pandemic, would be able to charge more, i.e., earn more profits from health insurance companies or government health care reimbursement, if they claim the patient had COVID-19 rather than another ailment like pneumonia or lung cancer, etc., and so, many of them erroneously list death is by COVID-19, thus upping the death-by-COVID-19 count.

Third, his videos are usually about Dr. Campbell reporting on studies or report. He does not actually create the studies or reports. If these studies or reports give results and conclusions contrary to what the Wikipedia reviewer would like to hear, they shouldn't be immediately marked as "misinformation." Dr. Campbell reviews them and explains the key points in an understandable way.

In conclusion, the Wikipedia entry on Dr. John Campbell must remove the unnecessary, defamatory, unproven, controversial statement. It does not add illumination to the entry, but merely gaslights and defames the subject without clear, unquestionable proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluelobe (talk • contribs) 14:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you have a look at WP:NLT and perhaps reframe your first sentence without the legal angle. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bluelobe's off-topic post at Talk:Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation further indicates their belief that this is a legal matter. The John Campbell talk page gets hit by waves of SPA disruption as the subject criticizes the Wikipedia article in videos every few days. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah and the OP has been blocked for their legal threats. Nil Einne (talk) 15:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh well. I tried.  Counting that as my good deed for the day. Dumuzid (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It really is time for the subject to contact RS and get them to retract or publish his clarifications. Rather than getting meat puppets to try and get those changes made here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We go wth what RS say, end of story. Slatersteven (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Rebecca De Mornay and WP:BLPPRIVACY
There's a continuing dispute about her dob. The sources used are: "Rebecca De Mornay reportedly arrested for DUI - USATODAY.com". usatoday30.usatoday.com. "Rebecca De Mornay arrested for suspected DUI". Today. Associated Press. November 6, 2007. Retrieved November 24, 2021. Associated Press records indicate De Mornay's age is 45, while some other sources give it as 48. Note: The birth year varies, but the August 29 birth day is consistent. Some have given a 1961/1962 birth year including:"washingtonpost.com: Rebecca De Mornay Filmography", The Washington Post, retrieved February 17, 2018; "Rebecca De Mornay Filmography and Movies - Fandango", fandango.com, archived from the original on April 25, 2010, retrieved November 24, 2021; Thomson, David (October 26, 2010), The New Biographical Dictionary of Film: Completely Updated and Expanded, Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group, ISBN 9780307594617 – via Google Books.
 * --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Current discussion: Talk:Rebecca_De_Mornay, older discussions: Talk:Rebecca_De_Mornay, Talk:Rebecca_De_Mornay --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Policy states that "With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, many people regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."

Is the article in its current state compliant with policy? Pinging two editors involved in a recent discussion. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * What is the source for the August 29 birthday? Syndicated Associated Press articles get published around quite a lot, so "Associated Press records indicate De Mornay's age is 45, while some other sources give it as 48" seems acceptable for listing her birthday as 1959 or 1962. From a quick Google search I can find heaps of articles that reproduced this material from AP:, so I don't think there's a privacy concern. Assuming August 29 is well established, that is. Endwise (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the year is more important than day and month. Publicly accessible records of company directors in the UK only list the month and year, but omit the date in the month, precisely for security reasons. Wikipedia could take a similar approach unless the subject has willingly disclosed their full dob. This is going back a few years now (2008) before 2-step verification, but my online bank account got hacked simply because somebody was able to answer two security questions (mother's maiden name and dob) and gain access to my account. It was absolutely horrendous. I was locked out of my account for months and got into debt and had to borrow money. Makes you wonder why they bother making you set a complicated password when it's that easy to hack. I think the year is important though, because it helps you to date somebody's notability, roughly how old they were etc. If there is some discrepancy over the year then it is probably best to give both dates. This sounds very similar to the situation at the Lee Grant article. The situation with Grant was complicated further because she was blacklisted so knocked 5 years off her age to resurrect her career in an ageist industry. She even bribed a public official to change the date on her driver's license. There were protracted discussions at that article but I think we reached a reasonable consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * August the 29th is very consistent. 20th century sources, from an 1986 magazine article that starts "Rebecca De Mornay is twenty-three", through a May 1985 issue of SPIN that has "22-year-old daughter Rebecca De Mornay", to  and lots of issues of Chase's Calendar, largely all say 1962-08-29. Uncle G (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion here. The local consensus for the article has been to leave it out because it wasn't clear, not because of any privacy concerns that I'm aware. Given the recent changes to WP:DOB from this RfC, I've been revisiting numerous BLP articles that have similar problems. I believe we have the "widely reported" criteria met, and "differing years". My next step was to be adding more references to make it clear that both possible years have been widely reported, encapsulated in a footnote. There's an open question of adding '62 as a third year. I'd like to hear from other editors if adding California Birth Index as a reference would be a good idea, as I've seen such primary sources being used in cases such as this. --Hipal (talk) 15:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't swear by the California Birth index but it sounded quite definitive when mentioned in Talk's previous section's discussion FIFTEEN years ago. I honestly don't understand why it is taking so long to resolve the edit. There are countless cases of listing multiple years for birth and/or death ranging from Jesus to the more recent savior figure Nina Jankowicz. Far better to admit uncertainty by listing multiple years than to omit/hide entirely, particularly because the text under Career for De Mornay has an explicit time marker "By the time she was 16". Martindo (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't swear by the California Birth index but it sounded quite definitive when mentioned in Talk's previous section's discussion FIFTEEN years ago. I honestly don't understand why it is taking so long to resolve the edit. There are countless cases of listing multiple years for birth and/or death ranging from Jesus to the more recent savior figure Nina Jankowicz. Far better to admit uncertainty by listing multiple years than to omit/hide entirely, particularly because the text under Career for De Mornay has an explicit time marker "By the time she was 16". Martindo (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Morelli
Lauren Morelli has a wiki page that states "Morelli is sexually confused, and after marrying a man, decided she is now a lesbian.[4] ." Not only is this statement incredibly homophobic, it is inaccurate to the current view Ms. Morelli has of herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:16E0:F410:754F:CE7A:16F8:CEB8 (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reporting that. The vandalism has been reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Mickey Singh
Requesting rev/deletion of WP:BLP violations. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:4FAD (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Done by Primefac. Please consider creating an account so that you can request deletion by email or contact an administrator through their user talk page. See WP:REVDELREQUEST for instructions. Politrukki (talk) 08:01, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Harry Sidhu
The majority of the text in the article on this politician is about being under investigation by the FBI, though he has not been charged with any crime, though news sources have reported about the investigation. The entire "Mayoral career" section is about the FBI investigation and was primarily added by Danny1556, a SPA. A lengthy sentence in the article that lists a litany of "potential violations" of law is linked to a primary source. While it is encyclopedic to state he is under FBI investigation since reliable sources have reported it, the article has undue weight on the FBI investigation. OCNative (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Needs YOU!

 * New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
 * New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines ; and Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
 * If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. —  Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) (or here) (or here)  17:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Thom Bresh
An IP user in good faith added this source to Thom Bresh claiming that he died yesterday. However, I have not been able to corroborate this. The blog, Saving Country Music, is a self published blog run entirely by one person who writes under a pseudonym. This appears to be a case similar to Randy Cornor in that no reliable sources have yet confirmed his death, thus making it impossible to include in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_362
 * I agree with removing the reference and information because it doesn't appear reliable. --Hipal (talk) 00:09, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP: Randy West
I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at Randy West. As it stands, it's a BLP sourced entirely to what seems to be a fan site. A quick skim through Newspapers and ProQuest yielded next to nothing in terms of sources. I would like to see the article improved, but I have to admit a dash of COI as I'm Facebook friends with him. Would anyone else be able to find something I can't? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There isn't that much. There's no decent biography that I can find, just the odd credit or mention in various books, such as other people's biographies or books about television shows.  Uncle G (talk) 07:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you recommend then? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe contact Randy West and see if he knows of some good sources to use. — <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 04:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism of James Spigelman
A user with IP address 203.54.176.46 has been repeatedly vandalising the article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Spigelman: replacing "He arrived in Australia with his family in 1949" with this nonsensical claim:.

I suggest that we ban this user from making edits to this article, if not the entire site since this is repeated behaviour.

Threedotshk (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I hate so much to get all bureaucratic on you, but most of us here are not admins, which is what you need to deal with problem users. You'd be better off posting this at WP:ANI, because that's where all the admins hang out. But now that you're here, just wait and see what happens. Many admins patrol this page too, but it's not really what it's for. Zaereth (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone can make a report at WP:AIV, which I just did. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny


I think there is an effort to misrepresent Navalny as a far-right ultranationalist.
 * 1) ,, 2nd edit/diff by the user implies, for example, that Navalny is just as bad ultranationalist as Putin. This is not supported by cited sources.
 * 2) - another user reincludes nearly the same content after agreeing with first user . This content can be referenced, but it is framed as a highly biased presentation through selective citation, and it is undue on the page. It is more than enough to say that Navalny "released several anti-immigration videos" in 2007 and "sympathised with the anti-immigration movement" during a period of time as included in this version:.
 * 3) There are prolonged discussions of this matter on article talk page: here (this thread is still active) and here. There is an RfC about only a part of it, with comments like . My very best wishes (talk) 12:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading the room. The talk page appears to be productive, and there isn't anything too egregious that amounts to a BLP violation (although it is low-quality). I think you're unintentionally misrepresenting the diffs when you say "the user implies, for example, that Navalny is just as bad ultranationalist as Putin"; I don't see any indication of that, and it appears that all of the statements there are sourced to one extent or another. Just keep hashing it out on the talk page, I don't see anything for BLPN to do here. There are reliable articles that detail Nalvany's past as a right-wing nationalist and how he no longer espouses those beliefs , but I haven't read enough into the situation enough to know whether this inclusion is WP:DUE. Curbon7 (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are two issues here. First, I believe that including info about Navalny supporting Russian nationalists in the past is due on the page, and this info is included (please see large 2nd paragraph [here. I am only saying that making it much bigger in "undue". Secondly, no, I am not misreading. Here is the diff: . It starts from: "Navalny's views about their neighbors are not always different than Putin's." Is it good summary of the source (an opinion piece), and is it true? We know [[Address concerning the events in Ukraine|what Putin said about Ukraine]]. Does Navalny share very same views? Not so according to the cited source. It says: Although he [Navalny] has condemned Russian aggression against Ukraine and drawn attention to his local roots – he has family in a village outside Kyiv and spent portions of his youth there -- he has not been as supportive of Ukraine's plight as many Ukrainians might have liked.. "he has not been as supportive...". OK. But the edit is equating someone who committed the aggression  and someone who condemned it. This is an outright misrepresentation, plain and simple. My very best wishes (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * - the insertion of disputed undue content continue. Please note rejection of similar content at an RfC: . BLP policy was explained to the user . My very best wishes (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Removal of the account
Illegal signed account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.191.188.54 (talk) 20:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * This doesn't make sense, more detail is needed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 20:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This user could be talking about Oromo Liberation Army which he edited recently. 110.226.24.207 (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Kate Chaney
This is a new page created about me. The page cites an Australian Electoral Commission document as a reference. This reference appears twice. This document - an AEC Qualification Form Checklist and appendages - contains private and personal information about me that should not be publicly disclosed and it must be retracted forthwith. The Australian Electoral Commission has confirmed that this information should not be publicly available. Kate Chaney — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokeycat1 (talk • contribs) 06:23, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, that pdf is accessible from https://www.aec.gov.au/election/candidates.htm?division=Curtin&state=WA, which is a reasonably accessible page on the AEC website. However, in the interests of your privacy, I won't add that link back in. Steelkamp (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Steelkamp, I don't know how this is usually done on Australian politics articles, but at glance, the removed source looks WP:PRIMARY to me, and so unsuitable in a WP:BLPPRIMARY/WP:DOB context. I assume the .gov put it online because they thought they should (or must), but it's not necessarily a good WP-source anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The subject of this article submitted those documents to the AEC in order to show compliance with Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. I suppose they did not realise that the AEC would put those documents online. Now looking at WP:BLPPRIMARY, I can see that it was not the best source to use. Steelkamp (talk) 08:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems that the Australian Electoral Commission publishes the checklist of all candidates as routine, but it's possible they made a mistake/partial mistake in this particular case. If so, I expect the online pdf will change or disappear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's correct, the AEC has published candidate eligibility checklist documents on their website since 2018 after the 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis. There was an amendment to the Electoral Act 1918 which compels the AEC to publish the documents on their public website for 40 days after the return of the election writs (this is the time in which a result can be challenged by petition to the Court of Disputed Returns). The Electoral Commissioner does have the power to withdraw or redact information, but I find it unlikely that the AEC would have confirmed to the candidate that the information should not be publicly available when they are compelled by law to make it so, or that a candidate would not be aware it would be publicly disclosed when they are advised in the Handbook for Candidates:
 * "You need to be aware that many of the documents you submit in relation to your candidacy will be made available for public inspection. These include the qualification checklist and any additional supporting documentation provided, and the financial disclosure return. Exceptions may apply in certain circumstances."
 * That said, I think you are absolutely right that these are WP:BLPPRIMARY documents and we should be extremely careful to the point of not using them as sources, partly because they do appear to be a massive privacy violation, and also because the reference will disappear from the AEC website in a few weeks after the mandated publication period expires. --Canley (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting background info! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:05, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I strongly oppose excluding this information from the article. Dates and places of birth are public information that all candidates for federal parliament in Australia are required by law to disclose. Furthermore, all members of parliament have their dates and places of birth publicly disclosed on the parliamentary website, as you can see here. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy here and I strongly object to Wikipedia allowing high-profile individuals to dictate whether publicly available information is suitable for publication here. ITBF (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think we are allowing them to dictate, but their wish happens to be supported by WP:BLPPRIMARY, part of a very important WP-policy. That they were required by law to disclose it doesn't matter. Sure, it's a bit counter-intuitive, but IMO the policy is clear enough. If some decent secondary source brings up some of this at some point, we can include it then. Nothing prevents journalists to do journalism here (afaik). And when she get's a page like we can use that, but I'm told she hasn't got one yet. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, I note that despite the above "The Australian Electoral Commission has confirmed that this information should not be publicly available." from May 23, the pdf appears unchanged atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Bennedict Mathurin
Someone keeps deleting information from this page about the groping allegations against Bennedict Mathurin. This was a widely reported upon incident discussed in the news media and social media. To dismiss credible allegations of sexual assault, seemingly caught on video, as "irrelevant" feels hardly appropriate. This is indeed an alleged incident, but it is very newsworthy and again, widely reported upon in credible places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5E:6E00:EC02:A40E:B1FA:C6:82F0 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, IP editor. Consensus among Wikipedia editors is that the New York Post is not a reliable source for use on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NYPOST. As for being discussed on social media, that is absolutely not a reason to include it in an encyclopedia. After all, most of what is discussed on social media is garbage. Normally, Wikipedia does not include allegations unless they have had a significant impact on person's career. So, you need to provide much better sources. Cullen328 (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * When I look at the first five pages of Google News results on Mathurin, I do not see any mention of this incident. That leads me to think that it may have been a tempest in a teapot. Cullen328 (talk) 02:14, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this article from the Associated Press published on ESPN credible? https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/33579541/arizona-wildcats-bennedict-mathurin-says-reached-tcu-video-shows-possible-contact-horned-frogs-dancer Truth Possum (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, that source doesn't really tell us anything does it? If there was any contact it most certainly doesn't sound intentional. There are a lot of "ifs", "possiblies", "mabies", and "declined to comments" there, but really it's a story with no actual substance. What, if any, effect did this have on his overall life and career? As an encyclopedia, we only need a summary of the subject, not every boring detail. This means focusing on those life-altering moments and things that really define the subject. We don't usually include minor traffic stops, DUI charges, or stuff like this unless it has some major implications that affect the subject's life considerably. This source gives no indication of that. It just says something may or may not have happened and no one is talking about it. Basically, "nothing to see here". Zaereth (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLPCRIME applies, we do not cover allegations when they are a one day news story.Slywriter (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Is there any truth to these accusations against David Miliband?
At Talk:David Miliband User:HardeeHar writes: "He’s wanted for espionage by Yemen. Which resulted in him being fired from his charity job and also in him being banned from entry into US on basis of him being an unregistered agent of a foreign country (Israel)." Doug Weller talk 09:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that I can't see anything that says he isn't still CEO of the IRC (it's on his Twitter bio), nor that he doesn't live in New York, I would say that's not true. And looking at the userpage and contribs of the editor who added it, I've removed the section and revdeleted it. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 11:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher Lloyd
These edits to Talk:Christopher Lloyd add information that appears violate BLP rules. Not sure how it should be handled. -- Pemilligan (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted and revision deleted. Thank you very much for reporting promptly, Pemilligan. These things are easy to deal with if we catch them early, as you made possible this time, and hard if they're a ways down in the history. Bishonen &#124; tålk 21:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC).

Robert Kiyosaki


More editors needed. I ran across this BLP while cleaning up some unreliable sources. I've removed 16 of 52 references as poor or unreliable, and it's clear that the article needs a more thorough review than I have time for. Looks like far too much of the article is based upon his own self-promotion. Someone who has time to look for better references for expansion and proper POV would be of great help. --Hipal (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Took a good chop at it removing items based on weak or no sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hipal, you should not reinstate good faith BLP removal without correcting the issue or obtaining consensus. It doesn't matter if the source is an expert in the field if they're self-published in a BLP of another person. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I indicated, multiple third-party sources cover it. We can draw directly from them. --Hipal (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Pamela J. H. Slutz
There has apparently been long-term COI editing at Pamela J. H. Slutz - see User talk:Pamtuya and the history of the article. I did some cleanup, but BLPs are far from my area of expertise, and I'd appreciate it if someone else took a look to see if there's anything else that needs to be done. Thanks in advance! 199.208.172.35 (talk) 22:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Eesh. Mostly unsourced and what is sourced is primary. If not for what appears to be a case of inherent notability, not sure the article would even exist in mainspace. I'll leave this to someone with a scalpel, rather than using a macheteSlywriter (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes this had to be nominated for deletion. See Articles for deletion/Pamela J. H. Slutz. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 01:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Kamahl Santamaria
Hi, would it be possible for a more experienced editor to check the recent edits on Kamahl Santamaria? He's been in the New Zealand media a lot recently with news outlets circulating allegations of sexual harassment. Someone added sourced content on these allegations and they were deleted by a random user whose only contribution to Wiki seems to have been this deletion. The deletion might have been justified--I don't know--but thought it would be good if someone else could have a look at it. (I first asked this question at the helpdesk and a user also noted that the reason stated for removal implies legal threat) Cameron.coombe (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, this edit is problematic because it comes very close to violating no legal threats.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , please don't use phrases like "random editor". The rumors came from IP editors., the libel comment is out of line (but not blockable, in my opinion), but the rest of the edit summary is actually quite correct. The question, as I said elsewhere, is whether the sources are strong and reliable, and whether they are correctly represented. And really, this is a matter for the talk page first. For next time, if there is any doubt, REMOVE the content from the article and discuss the matter on the talk page, pinging all involved editors, and imploring them to not mess around in article space. Get the article protected if need me. But we MUST err on the side of caution. And if talk page discussion is not helpful, or if we're already edit warring, then take it to this board. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I thought it'd be best to come here first rather than the talk page as I had no idea what I was doing. I don't edit very frequently and I noticed this history so I thought I'd ask somewhere where more people had an idea of what they were doing. Cameron.coombe (talk) 00:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stuff (along with the NZ Herald) is one of NZ's two major online media outlets and is a solid source. We can be sure they ran this article past their lawyers before publishing. This has all the appearances of a COI edit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but every news outlet has its op/ed pieces that are not reliable even if their actual news stories are. This is true even if they're the NY Times or the BBC. Reliability is not simply measured by the source's publisher or author, but for the particular information it gives among other things. This source is an op/ed, because it gives no actual facts to support its conclusions (its "understanding"). In fact, the only facts it gives contradict its conclusions. This is not a reliable source for the info in our article. Zaereth (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * How is that an op-ed? It's a straight report, based on information it obtained presumably from a TVNZ employee. I have no idea what the "contradiction" is you're referring to. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:24, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Real news reports don't give their understanding, that is, their own theory (aka: opinion). Especially without giving any reason as to why they think this, without a shred of factual information to back up their theories. (Notice how they're always careful to say "Stuff understands" every time they cross that line?) The only facts they give is that they reached out for comment and got the cold shoulder, and any public statements said he left due to a family emergency. Those facts contradict their theory, which itself was given no basis in fact. It's not too hard to tell the difference. It's basic journalism 101. Zaereth (talk) 07:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It might also be worth pointing out that your own statement presumes facts not in evidence. Zaereth (talk) 10:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no "theory" or "opinion". It is obvious that they have a source within the organization whom they want to protect, and that they consider the information reliable enough to risk legal action by publishing it. It's their job to get past the bullshit and publish the facts as best as they can determine them. If we can only accept public statements from the organization as reliable, then we're playing their spin doctoring game. ("Journalism 101". See I can be patronising too.) Subsequent events have confirmed that "family emergency" was not just spin doctoring but an outright lie, and that several complaints were made about this person during his time both in TVNZ and in Al Jazeera. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Laksmi De-Neefe Suardana
There has apparently been long-term massive deletion and content removal made by User talk:HiChrisBoyleHere and the history of the article. He deletes major references and replace it with instagram link as his reference.--Canny Yeohmanly (talk) 07:49, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Clayton Morris
I can't see evidence that he was convicted of anything but the lead says he was. There's also unsourced material about YouTube, 3 year old material about the families intention to fight allegations (written in the present tense), etc. Doug Weller  talk 11:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed that, and the "exiled" part from the lead. Looking for for sourcing now, but there's certainly a lot of people he's upset. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish thanks. Doug Weller  talk 11:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is pretty bad right now, as it's basically just an attack piece. The only details in the article are about lawsuits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @ScottishFinnishRadish not terribly surprising. I guess more detail on his life would help? I looked for discussion of his YouTube Redacted site but couldn't find any. Doug Weller  talk 11:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd probably nominate it for deletion if they weren't a public figure, as the only in-depth coverage I could find seems to be about the real estate issues. I'm not sure about removing the copyright lawsuit. He sued someone else, and there was coverage of that, but the only coverage of the ruling is primary court documents. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Anna Freeman
I recently came across which started off under a different title. To comply with MOS:GENDERID I removed the one reference which has the possible dead name in the title, it doesn't mention Anna Freeman anyway. I also removed the link from a (now I guess unneeded) disambiguation page. Do we need to do anything about the authority control links? One of them, the Czech Republic library, only mentions the possible dead name so it seems to me it probably should be removed. The VIAF mentions both names but I assume we normally keep those? Note that because the article started life under the possible dead name, this may suggest the subject was notable under it. However the sourcing at the moment is so poor that frankly it's not clear to me she's notable now, but I know very little about the notability of classical musicians. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, I came across the article from a thread at Reference desk/Entertainment which I'm avoiding directly linking. As a regular at the RD, I'd prefer someone else to evaluate if anything needs to be done about it given MOS:GENDERID. Nil Einne (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

David M. Sabatini
There is a discussion going on at Talk:David M. Sabatini about how or whether to include material about ongoing lawsuits filed and counterfiled by Sabatini and a junior former colleague. One particular issue: an IP editor (and also some other editors in the article history) would like to source material about the lawsuit to the substack of Bari Weiss. The page is currently protected. I am not entirely certain that I have handled the situation correctly, and would like input from experienced editors. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * the living person in question has been accused for sexual impropriety and sacked. but he is now suing his employer for unjust dismissal etc, arguing that the whole thing was false etc. This lawsuit is widely known, and covered in Barri Weiss substack.
 * now, Substack isn't a "source".
 * But we ended up having a BLP defaming it's subject by omitting to mention that he sues his defamers. it's utterly bizzare IMHO Jazi Zilber (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Wearing my admin hat, biographical articles need to be sourced to a very high bar of reliability. Bari Weiss's Substack is nowhere near the neighborhood of an adequate source for contentious material about a living person, and if it is being used as such then WP:BLP is being violated and I or another admin can help correct that. MastCell Talk 17:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to add that it isn't just substack that is a possible source for the counter lawsuit, see the Talk page that is linked for other sources. The problem is that the way the article is currently worded it stands as if Sabatini was not disputing the allegations.
 * This reeks of bias by omission, hence why the discussion was started in the first place that there should be a mention of the lawsuit fighting these allegations.
 * One of the sources being quoted for the sexual allegations even ''contains' the information of an ongoing countersuit (source number two): https://www.science.org/content/article/prominent-biologist-david-sabatini-out-mit-after-breaching-sexual-relationship-policy
 * However the phrase: "Sabatini has filed a defamation lawsuit against the Whitehead institute" is currently not being added because apparently the substack article, which is an invalid source, is the only considered source? There are other sources for it and it should be added as it removes the bias of the section and restores factual balance. 2001:9E8:361D:3300:7C03:A4FF:FE0E:E796 (talk) 14:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * exactly. the BLP is used upside down to DEFAME the LP subject of the article. bizzare. Jazi Zilber (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Caryn Ann Harlos
is repeatedly adding BLP violations and blanking content from this article without edit summaries or sources, , and has not responded to my messages on his talk page. There is no source for the added claim that the removal was retroactively made "void", and no reason given for removing the results of an election she willingly participated in. The subject of the article has herself been pushing a revisionist view of history since she re-won her position, and made a legal threat against me on my talk page for and accused me of "silencing" her on article talk for removing the unsourced claim. The only RS we have for the event, Reason Magazine, only says she "re-won" her position. It doesn't support the idea she was never out of it in the first place, although she very much would like that to have been the case. In fact, it says she had been "booted". This is of particular concern to WP:BLP not only because it includes unreferenced information about Harlos, but also because it totally invalidates the tenure of another living person—John Wilford. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * A link to a video of the event is included in your talk section and posted here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OzfcEepE0o
 * 31:00-42:00. The footnote indicates that Wilford acted as secretary. J. J. in PA (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A YouTube livestream of the convention is a primary source. Primary sources are not allowed for contentious claims about living people, please see WP:BLPPRIMARY, especially not to override a reliable secondary source such as Reason. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just reverted again, once again without a source or edit summary. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, the record of what happened is the best possible source - you are relying on non-expert opinion on what happened. I am the subject the article and refusing to accurately report what happened and what my actual position is in the party is defamatory.  I do ask for dispute resolution and administration assistance.  I never made a legal threat.  I don't believe in defamation as a legal cause of action.  It is obvious that Tartan357 has some kind of personal vendetta here I am not interested in.  I don't sue people. (COI:  I am the subject of the article). 2601:285:C180:FF90:6529:E3FF:C6A4:B122 (talk) 03:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Reason magazine is listed at WP:RSPSS as a generally reliable source. ― Tartan357  Talk 03:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The Libertarian Party official records is a reliable source. It is accepted by the FEC.   Don't be ridiculous. 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC) 2601:285:C180:FF90:6529:E3FF:C6A4:B122 (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You even removed the out of order part, there is absolutely no excuse for that. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal vendettas.03:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:C180:FF90:6529:E3FF:C6A4:B122 (talk)
 * Please read WP:PSTS. An organization writing about itself is a primary source, and cannot be used to verify contentious claims about living people. The only RS content we have to go off of is from Reason:"Mises Caucus favorite Caryn Ann Harlos, who was booted by the LNC from her elected secretary position over Mises-related faction fights, re-won her elected position Saturday as well." ― Tartan357  Talk 03:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a tough one. WP:V says Reason is the only usable source, but in doing so we are only telling half the story. The Primary documents are readily available in a google search and show a clear sequence of suspension, suspension upheld by Judicial committee, and subsequent nullification of previous motions at the Convention. The later two happening well after the Reason article was written. While nullification does not mean Wikipedia can not cover it and in fact, the suspension should be covered but our policies are creating a potential BLP violation by not allowing a balanced and accurate presentation of the facts. I would cite WP:IAR as a reason to use Primary documents to accurately state the 3 motions (with zero commentary).Slywriter (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My problem is primarily with wiping out Wilford's term in the succession box as well as deleting the results of the special election. That is a BLP violation regarding Wilford. His political opponents won and then tried to rewrite history, which we should not allow. Simply stating they nullified it is something else. ― Tartan357  Talk 04:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * THANK YOU. This is my objection - and the succession box is about official positions, not people's opinions on official positions, and in the official records of the Party, I have been Secretary since 2018.  YES, the period of time when John Wilford served should be noted!  I never said otherwise, but THAT should be in a footnote, not me.  I am being denied an accurate representation of what the Party itself holds to be the succession of its officers because some editor here has it in his head this is "revisionism."  Surely the Party is allowed to say who it's officers have been.  I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone here even arguing this, and although I know that Wikipedia allows people to not identify themselves by legal names and I am fine with that, I feel like this particular editor is someone who potentially has a political vendetta against me, and perhaps should not be editing my article.  I understand this is tough and things get rambunctious, but as a the "living person" who is the subject of this article, I literally have suffered the real life consequence of having my professional life damaged by what happened to me, and all I want is my proper titles recognized and a NPOV account of what happened.Carynannharlos (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And I want to be clear, I don't think the results of the (now declared to be a false one) special election should be wiped out. That should be part of the NARRATIVE in the article.  But it should not be part of the succession box.  All of the facts of this unhappy affair (and I cannot even believe that justification being given here is that someone's political opponents won - that is like the definition of political contests) should be in the narrative.  This is an incredibly dark period of Party history that cannot be forgotten or wiped out.  But in the official succession story of this Party, I was the secretary for the 2018-2020, the 2020-2022 terms, and now for the 2022-2024 term.  I was wrongfully denied my seat for a portion of the 2020-2022 term as declared by the delegates.  Carynannharlos (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * (Disclaimer: I am a member of the Mises Caucus, so I cannot be considered a truly neutral arbiter, but I've always been able to separate my personal values from my Wikipedia editing, so make of that what you will). That said, I am in conjunction with Slywriter's opinion. Per WP:PRIMARY, "" As long as it is worded very carefully, I would say that the body nullifying her removal is straightforward enough that a primary source isn't the worst thing in the world. Regarding the concerns about Wilford, Harlos did not hold the position of secretary for the months she was removed, so even though her removal was later nullified, the standard practice would be to still split her tenure and consider her successor for the original tenure and predecessor for the new one to be Wilford, as he was acting de jure at the time. Curbon7 (talk) 04:27, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Stating, without analysis, that the removal and nullification took place is important to communicate historical changes in party leadership. Stating that she was still recognized as secretary in some official way at the time she was out of office is the problem—that would be historical revisionism. ― Tartan357  Talk 05:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Literally NO ONE is trying to remove references to Wilford entirely. He SHOULD be mentioned *in the article* but you are making false claims about the Party itself in the succession box.  I have been declared to have always been the Secretary, I get you don't like that, and I am not upset you don't like that, but to claim that the FACT that I was declared to be Secretary is "historical revisionism" is to be blunt, defamatory revisionism.  Just like I said before, that is like claiming someone who was wrongfully in prison and then exonerated was in reality guilty while they were imprisoned rather than wrongfully in prison.  Plenty of people disagree with later exonerations, but they don't get to use Wikipedia to continue to claim that person is guilty because not doing so would be "historical revisionism."  I have been Secretary since 2018.  That is a fact of the Party, and today I will have an official statement from the Party Chair.  If that is not a reliable source, that is insane.  Also there is no biography of Wilford, so there can be no BLP violation of him - the article is about ME, not Wilford - by not recognizing my rightful title, you are committing a BLP violation against ME who is the actual subject.  I am going to give another hypothetical to prove my point.  Say at some point in the future, someone is declared to be elected President of the United States but a later court case finds this was not the case (either do to election fraud, miscounting, or for whatever reason), would we say that person was the ACTUAL President of the country in listing the names of the Presidents in the history of our country?  No we would not.  Yes, he would have been thought to have been so for whatever period of time, but he was not in fact actually President.  It is exactly that same thing here.  The Party is governed by its bylaws the same way the country is allegedly governed by the Constitution.  The bylaws determine rightful officers and my removal was declared to a continuing breach of the bylaws.  I was always Secretary.  You denying that is the only historical revisionism going on here.  Carynannharlos (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If the wrong person was doing the job of the President of the USA for 6 months, we would definitely write about that and include them in the appropriate lists, though I'm sure there'd be some kind of footnote. MrOllie (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We also have precedent for this, as this happened quite frequently in downballot races in the US throughout the 1800s. For example, consider the case of Horatio Bisbee Jr. and Jesse J. Finley, wherein every election between 1874 and 1882 was overturned. Curbon7 (talk) 13:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes absolutely should be written about, but they were not the XXth President if null and void.  Again, on this point, I can live with it as is as the opening paragraph has been corrected but the official position of the Party that the article is supposed to be about is that I was always Secretary.  No matter what some wikipedia editor might think.  I thought we were supposed to writing the FACTS of the organization not our opinions on what they should list.  But in finale, I can live with it as is.  The escalation of the dispute happened when the original editor kept reverting the fact that the decision was voided in the narrative portion.  I am not going to get apoplectic over the succession box, I do think the footnote should be clearer once I have the official letter from the Party, but in the interest of resolving this dispute and moving on, I will not argue about the Succession box - I understand the reasoning and can live with it.  Carynannharlos (talk) 18:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no knowledge of this dispute or interest in discussing politics, but for the record, just to help you understand. Wikipedia is written in accordance of what reliable sources can verify, and per WP:PRIMARY, we prefer third party accounts to avoid self-serving or biased accounts or autobiographies. We allow for first party accounts, but only for the most basic, non-contentious content. We allow Nickelback to tell us what year they formed. We don't allow them as a source of how good or popular they were. So the issues you're debating - it's nothing personal, nor is it anything so silly as "not caring about facts", it's merely how we handle things third party sources are preferred as a means of keeping things neutral, and as a metric for whether or not something is worth covering to begin with. Sergecross73   msg me  18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nickelback is objectively terrible. Everyone knows that.  Besides that however, I still feel like my point is not being understood (likely my fault) - It is a fact that it is the Party's position that I remained Secretary - it doesn't mean that their position is correct or anyone has to agree with it.  One can report the facts of a biased opinion without agreeing with the opinion.  Going back to Nickelback, if they said they were the greatest band on earth, the fact of their statement can be reported - they said it - without endorsing the content.  But as I said, I can live with the wording now as is - this all started with an edit war I did not ask for, and I want to be sure that it doesn't start back up as I have little interest in constantly monitoring my wikipedia page.  Carynannharlos (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's your take away, then you're probably missing the point. My point is, if you want it (or anything) in the article, you or someone is going to want to find a third party reliable source that corroborates what you're saying. That's how the website works. You can argue or disagree all you want, but you're just going to to keep falling into the same roadblocks and disputes if you don't change your approach, because that's how the website works. Sergecross73  msg me  19:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I already said I am fine with it as it is now. No idea why you are keeping up a dispute that has been resolved.  This is my first and only dispute here in over two decades, I am not a regular, and do not intend to be.  I run an LP specific wiki where I spend my time. Carynannharlos (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I generally chime in whenever I see someone start up with misguided "I guess Wikipedia doesn't like FACTS" type arguments when it's really just that they don't understand how the website works. My attempts to get you up to speed have, for whatever reason, seemed to have upset you, so I'll leave you be. Best of luck. Sergecross73   msg me  20:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Text sucks to convey emotion. I am not upset.  Quite the contrary, the edit war is resolved.  Carynannharlos (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A different editor edited the succession box overnight with a version I think can make everyone happy. It lists the term filled by Mr. Wilford but notes the later voiding - so his tenure is recognized and the voiding is recognized. I think this is a good compromise.Carynannharlos (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Can Yaman
"found guilty due to an incident during which he insulted and threw a glass at Selen Soyder, his co-star in the 2016 series Hangimiz Sevmedik.[9][10]"

This is libellous entry which has been several times previously evaluated and sources of the info checked. The source is tabloid press and not the actual court documentation and court outcome. The info is incorrect. Following source checking the information was deemed previously libellous and removed and the contributors who were repeatedly entering the entry for defamatory purposes had been block from contribution to the page and also the page was put under protection. Please check the the talk history for this issue previously experienced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.210.131 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the number of sources which say that he was fined 7,830 lire for the offence, even if these are tabloids (and they don't all appear to be), why are they repeating the same "false" information. What in your opinion was the court outcome? Black Kite (talk) 17:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Bernard Donoughue, Baron Donoughue
Lots of recent edits were made on the basis that he has died but I cannot find it in the media and there is no source, that I can see, in the article. I don't want to screw this up and he is not a young man ... could an experienced BLP operator please take a quick look? Thank you. DBaK (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything, not even any twitter comments (y'know, the usual RIP stuff). It's been nearly a week since the supposed date of death, there would be something. Death must have a reliable source. Schazjmd   (talk)  22:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The death of a lord would definitely be reported on to some extent, so it's doubtful at this point. Curbon7 (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the speedy responses. I really appreciate the experienced eyes taking a look. With best wishes DBaK (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling
I would appreciate if someone could look at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. I removed a large amount of unsourced content--mostly about living wrestlers and managers--and the edit was reverted a few times by User:Mr. C.C.. I left a detailed message on their talk page explaining that it was a BLP violation to continue to reverted edits in order to add back unsourced content about living people. This editor responded that they are working on adding sources, and that it is also my responsibility to add sources the article. This editor has also added various "under construction" tags, but then does not edit the article until the next day, threatening they will report me I keep removing the tags or the unsourced content (they appear to be gaming the system with the "under construction" tags). I have also suggested this editor move the unsourced content to their sandbox while they look for sources. My concern is removing the vast unsourced content about living people that remains in the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've removed the unsourced claims again. Mine was the fifth time because you've had to remove them four times already. I also left Mr. C.C. a discretionary sanctions notification and have no issues asking for sanctions if this continues. Woodroar (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Entire content under Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling is unsourced. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is the fifth time that Mr. C.C. has restored unsourced claims about living persons, many controversial or negative, at Elite Canadian Championship Wrestling. Mr. C.C. has been warned and been given a discretionary sanctions notification. Admin intervention would be appreciated. Woodroar (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked other paragraphs too under Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling which are mostly unsourced.
 * Elite_Canadian_Championship_Wrestling includes lists of mostly non-notable wrestlers. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 17:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Since User:Mr. C.C. seems to be incapable of stopping edit-warring to re-insert this mostly unsourced and BLP-dubious material, I have removed it myself and p-blocked them from editing the article for six months. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I had no hope that he would cease edit warring. This has solved the biggest problem and now rest of the issues can be discussed at Talk:Elite_Canadian_Championship Wrestling. 106.213.247.85 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Lelling
Hello - Section 2.3, recently added to this page, is argumentative and unsupported. The same substance was previously removed by a Wikipedia moderator (Nil Einne) in Feb 2022. (I should note that I am the subject of the entry.) As public sources reflect, I announced the cited case against Prof. Gang Chen in January 2021, but I left the U.S. government a month later, on February 28, 2022 (https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/united-states-attorney-andrew-e-lelling-announces-departure). I was not involved in subsequent events (the case being dismissed, etc) and knew nothing about them. The cited sources do not support the contentions in this section - for example (none of this is libelous or defamatory - merely incorrect and unfair criticism): - "The handling of the case was widely criticized, as it appeared to criminalize normal academic activities, and the "China ties" Chen was accused of hiding was evidently an MIT collaboration with a Chinese university, which appeared in the news at the time." The cited article (n.27) (1) says none of this beyond noting the school's collaboration with a Chinese university and (2) the article is an announcement MIT - by the school employing the professor who was charged (that is, it is not a reliable news source). Finally, the charges against the professor were not based on MIT's collaboration with another school. - "MIT president Rafael Reif soon released a letter regarding the case, and pointed out the obvious mischaracterization in the indictment." There is no support for "obvious mischaracterization," and again the cited source (n.28) is not a news source, much less a reliable one - it is an open letter from the President of the school. - "No apology was issued by FBI or Lelling regarding the handling of the case." When the case was dismissed, I had been gone for over a year and had nothing to do with the decision to dismiss it - the reference to "apologizing" is inapposite, and there is no citation, since this is basically a criticism by the writer. - "Chen later came forward and revealed further details about the extent of the mishandling of the case,[31][32][33] indicating that the prosecuting team led by Lelling deliberately hid multiple pieces of obvious evidence that would have negated the charges all together." The cited sources (n. 31, 32, 33) (a) do not support that I "led" any team, do not support the assertion that any evidence was "hidden," and do not support that any evidence "obviously" exonerated Prof. Chen; and (b) are all statements by the person prosecuted himself, or opinion pieces published on his behalf (again, they are not even technically neutral news sources or other reliable source material).

I understand that people have strong feelings on these issues, but the recently-added subsection is argumentative and factually incorrect, and I had no connection to the underlying events surrounding dismissal of this case. Thank you for your review of this matter. SMaturin99 (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Much of the section has now been reduced with the weight being cited to the NY Times article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to note, I am not a "moderator" although there's no such thing on Wikipedia anyway. The reduced section is far better than that which I removed. I think it's still complicated by the fact that while the source and IIRC some others do mention Lelling and include critical commentary of the case, it's a general thing rather than explicitly linking Lelling to the problems or discussion his role in depth, indeed the NYT only mentions him twice I think and one of them is relating to him now. However maybe the implicit criticism is enough to warrant inclusion, as he was in charge of something which even he later agreed was problematic. Nil Einne (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Beyond sources which more strongly link discuss the involvement of Lelling in the case, as always sources primarily discussing Lelling which mention the case would IMO help to resolve WP:UNDUE concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the explanation. The author (WaldenLi) who added the problematic section has now removed the new language fashioned by Morbidthoughts and re-inserted his original, argumentative and unsupported, text.  I respectfully ask that the entry be revised again and that WaldenLi be blocked from making further changes.  (I should note that I am the subject of the entry.)  I suggest one additional change, which is to insert "allegedly" before "singled out" in the new text - the law enforcement initiative (the "China Initiative") that is the subject of this subsection was not designed to target people based on ethnicity, but I acknowledge the arguments of those who say it must have been.  Thank you again for the time spent on this issue. SMaturin99 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nil Einne, it may be better to shift the section to Lelling's role in the China Initiative rather than focus on specific cases like Chen. WP:BLPCRIME most likely requires this since many of the cases were dropped.Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Tejasvi Surya
Please help to resolve 2 questions,

1. Subject is a member of Indian parliament. An editor is removing and suppressing information about his criminal cases, should this information be added? There are multiple reliable sources (national newspapers) discussing his criminal cases. (see Talk:Tejasvi Surya) (Source: Police book trespass case against Tejasvi Surya )

2. There were protests by Human rights org during MPs overseas visit, leading to the cancellation of the subjects talk. Discussed at Talk:Tejasvi_Surya covered by international newspaper in detail. but once again, this user is suppressing the mention in the article calling it WP:UNDUE. --Venkat TL (talk) 06:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One-off coverage about the things that haven't affected the person's career are simply WP:UNDUE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Abhishek0831996 (1) where is this rule coming from? (2) this is not one off ok. Venkat TL (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Claire Danes
Collapsing outdated text below. This issue is ongoing at Claire Danes, which is now protected with the contentious version that violates WP:BLP.

TolWol56 is currently engaging in an edit war on Claire Danes. Danes has been banned from Manila, but the article wrongly states that she has been banned from the Philippines based on a source cited in The Guardian, which is based off of the original 1998 CBS article. Upon inspecting the CBS source, it becomes clear that the author of the Guardian piece incorrectly reported on the events, as the CBS source clearly states that she was banned from Manila, but that the President thought she should be banned from the entire country. Furthermore, her comments are incorrectly represented, and the entirety of the commentary is less neutral than every source on the matter. Upon fact-checking this part of the article, I corrected the errors. This was reverted by TolWol56, who claimed I was "whitewashing" the entry about it. I informed this user I am not white, and referred them to the Code of Conduct, which they promptly deleted, and restored my revision per WP:BLP, since the historical version was factually incorrect. TolWol56 reverted again, referred to my edits as "rambling" and "whitewashing" again, and left an erroneous Edit War UW on my talk page. I have made a new entry on Danes's talk page, but given that what is currently written is misrepresenting her words, along with the ban itself being factually incorrect, I need some assistance on Danes' page to fix it so I do not violate any edit warring policies.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * No BLP violation happened.
 * To say that only "white" person can engage in whitewashing shows you have to work a lot on your vocabulary. Your claim that The Guardian provided misinformation is not going to fly because not just Guardian,, but other multiple sources also said Claire Danes remains banned from the Philippines. Most of the news outlets happen to report only initial happenings and fail to follow up on the event. But Guardian, Times News, etc. are not like that. That's why you would need a really credible source to actually refute this information.
 * You should continue the discussion on talk page instead of coming here with a non-issue. I note the paragraph was written after input from several editors during an RFC on talk page like you were already told. TolWol56 (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting the RFC, and again, this is a BLP violation because what is written is not true. That is why I have opened this section, to direct others to help fix it expediently. (Also, all but one of your sources are based on the CBS source, which says she's banned in Manila, your third source is a random news aggregate which has multiple errors in the small mention and is about an entirely different actor). I urge other editors and admins to head to Danes's page to assist. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The RfC concluded on 9 March, the 14th March version had the consensus wording and it remains the same to this day. You should avoid wasting people's time by showing your poor grasp of WP:BLP. TolWol56 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That RFC was over whether or not to include the event at all. I am talking about the accuracy and sources you are insisting on keeping. There are better sources, which I’ve provided you in the talk section. Why you refuse to acknowledge the issues with your sourcing is absurd. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Why on earth would you inform an editor you are not white when they said you were whitewashing? Your comment suggests your English language level is very high so it seems very surprising you're not aware what whitewashing means. Are you trolling or is your account compromised or something? This is one of the most bizarre BLPN threads I've seen in a long time and frankly I'm not surprised discussion broke down if you said something like that. Nil Einne (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Because the editor has been hostile from the jump, and I was extremely upset that my correcting misinformation from poor sourcing was disingenuously called whitewashing, when I would never do that considering my own lived experience. My hope was that the editor would discuss the merits of the information, instead of resorting to disrespecting me. I was wrong. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 14:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again what on earth does whether you are white have to do with whether you were whitewashing? Sorry but this is a completely dumb comment and doesn't help the discussion in any way. Again given your level of English I can only assume you know what whitewashing means in this context and it has jackshit to do with race and you've said nothing to suggest for some reason despite your good level of English you did not know what whitewashing means. And it's been pointed out to you by TolWol56 if you really didn't know so I assume if you really didn't, you'd know by now. Yet you haven't used this as an explanation, so I can only assume you always knew. And unlike some other terms in common use, whitewashing in this context deriving from the paint, doesn't have a racial or racist origins or implications (like say whitelist and blacklist), so it's not like it was even reasonable to be unhappy over the use of the term for that reason. It's no wonder the editor is hostile when instead of engaging in serious discussion about concerns over the effects of your edits, you make such silly trollish comments which have zero to do with the claim being made. I know nothing about your life experiences but ultimately if you want to be an editor here, no matter if you may disagree with the editor's view of the situation or tone, you need to be willing to discuss concerns over your edits seriously rather than just making silly trollish comments which have zilch to do with the concerns and don't help anything. And saying the effects of one or more edits is whitewashing is a not unreasonable in certain circumstances, as you likely disagree, just explain why you feel your edits were reasonable so you can actually advance the discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * In the hopes of finding a face-saving way out, let's assume that many people today have probably never read Huckleberry Finn and never actually looked up the term "whitewashing" in the dictionary. I mean it happens with "controversy" and "censorship" all the time, so why not whitewashing? But we now all know it has nothing to do with race. Also, neither does "whitelist", which is more related to the term "white hat" or "black hat", which is how you could tell the good guys from the bad in old Western movies. Bringing up race could have been deflecting, but let's assume it was a misunderstanding and move on.


 * Ok, so now on to the sources. The guardian is a poor source because it is not about the subject, but only mentions the subject in passing, as an example. This is not secondary but tertiary source material, because they're just quoting sources from the original reports. Sources that only mention something in passing but are not about the subject are lousy sources, and I wouldn't use them.


 * So, now lets go back to sources from the time, which are all about the subject and the event. In 1998, APN news reported, here, that Manilla had banned all Claire Danes --movies-- from being shown in Manilla. Claire Danes was not banned from Manilla, but they weren't going to show her films there, that's for sure. The CBS source here, reports that in 1999, Danes was banned from the Philippines by the President. There. Dispute resolved. It appears to be another simple misunderstanding or misreading of the sources, coupled with poor sourcing to begin with. EZPZ. Zaereth (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The CBS source (1998, not 1999), says "President Joseph Estrada of the Philippines, a former movie star, said he believes Hollywood actress Claire Danes should be banned from entering the Philippines for having disparaged the country's capital. "She should not be allowed to come here. She should not even be allowed to set foot here," Estrada said Thursday in reaction to a decision by Manila's city council Tuesday to declare Danes "persona non grata" and ban all her movies from being shown in the city."
 * Can you clarify where it states she was banned in 1999 by the president? SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the term whitewashing to mean white people telling history in a way that makes white people look like saviors, heroes, and victims, while erasing or demonizing people of other races. I am familiar with this in my own culture. I personally would never say that to someone unless they were white. It felt like a disingenuous attack to distract from this editor's behavior (which from their talk page, appears to not be limited to this interaction with me). SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, so much for saving face. I tried. Your understanding is completely wrong. Whitewash is a paint made of salt and lime which kills bacteria and mold. It just so happens that it's white in color. It was used for centuries for painting picket fences to keep them from rotting. Whitewash is rarely used anymore, although most people know it from Huck Finn tricking Tom Sawyer into finishing his chores by telling him what fun it was. If you simply look it up in a dictionary you'd find it means "deliberately attempting to conceal unpleasant or incriminating facts about someone or something." Republicans come here trying to whitewash Donald Trump's article while Democrats tried to whitewash Obama's. Sometimes black and white are just colors and have nothing to do with race. As Nil pointed out, trying to tie the two together makes you look very bad in this situation, and only hurts your case in immeasurable ways. (ie: You don't have to be white to come off as racist.) You can't make up your own definition for words, unless you don't want people to take you seriously. Zaereth (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's what I've learned in school and culturally. I wasn't just making it up. Thank you for your explanation, I apologize for getting it wrong and thinking OP said something they didn't. I still wasn't doing what TolWol said I was, even with the proper definition. For context, here's some of where I got my incorrect understanding from:
 * Whitewashing American History
 * What Is Whitewashing — and Why Is It So Harmful?
 * A New Meaning of 'Whitewashing' SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Zaereth, @Firefangledfeathers, @Slywriter, @TolWol56: I've opened an RFC to discuss the paragraph. Would appreciate your input. Talk:Claire Danes. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogin&returnto=Wikipedia%3ABiographies+of+living+persons%2FNoticeboard&returntoquery=action%3Dedit%26section%3D18
 * "She should not be allowed to come here. She should not even be allowed to set foot here," Joseph Estrada said in reaction to Persona non grata issued by Manila Council.
 * You are treating Estrada's statement to be something like "this resolution isn't enough, the ban should be extended to cover entire country". If he really meant something like that then I would like to hear the 100% predictable opposition from any Filipino official who commented on these statements, or the Manila Council replied "but we thought ban from Manila is enough".
 * They didn't because it was already a countrywide ban. Esquire Magazine Philippines describes as "persona non grata" of the Philippines as: "If a person is declared persona non grata, he is barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council." TolWol56 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Again, that doesn't say cities can declare country-wide bans. Please look at Persona non grata, and any of the dozens of high-quality sources which state the declaration covers Manila. The President's statements were in support of the city council's resolution. He also does not state she is banned from the country. You are trying to force something to be true by ignoring nearly every single source on the matter. I do not understand your purpose in doing this. Wikipedia should be accurate, encyclopedic, and neutral. You are actively working against that. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My best guess after reviewing the sources provided is that SIARH is correct: Danes was declared persona non grata in Manila and her films were banned from the city. I think later passing mentions in RS have overstated the effect of the ban, possibly piggy-backing off each other. That said, my best guess barely matters. There's a discrepancy between reliable sources that should itself be mentioned in the article. I propose we either mention both possibilities in the article body or mention one (I vote for "banned from Manila") and explain the alternative in a footnote. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * That sounds like an excellent way to handle this. Zaereth (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at 1998 newspaper archives, AP posted a story that is clear that Manila City Council voted to ban Danes and her movies. The President is also quoted as saying she should be banned from the country. The sub-headline of the newspaper articles is "Banned from the Phillipines" / "Person non grata in Phillipines", but the body of the articles never discuss that beyond the President's own statement, so I think Firegangledfeather's compromise of Banned in Manila with a footnote is reasonable or a wordy sentence that says "Banned in Manila and the President called for a national ban, but it is unclear if such ban was ever formally enacted."Slywriter (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , how about "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata in the Philippines by Manila City Council and the council also prohibited distribution of her films in the region." This line is supported by Far Eastern Economic Review, Volume 161, Issues 40-45, 1998, which said the prohibition involved "her movies and declare her persona non grata in the Philippines." This way, we can avoid the said confusion about Manila/Philippines. TolWol56 (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As there is zero indication Manila City Council has this authority and the only attributable statement to the President says "should", this would be introducing a lie as compromise which is not appropriate.Slywriter (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, they have the authority: "If a person is declared persona non grata, he is barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council." TolWol56 (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sure I'm not the only one that reads that as saying that city councils can declare someone persona non grata in their cities. That local governments in the Philippines could ban someone from the country as a whole is an exceptional claim, and I'd expect to see more coverage about it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * "barred from entering the country that issued that declaration. Local governments in the Philippines can also declare someone persona non grata through resolutions passed by the city council" is unambiguous. The source is Esquire (magazine) addition from the Philippines. The magazine is WP:RS per RSN. TolWol56 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What does CHR have to do with the Manila City Council (reread) or the President who said "should"? I'm well aware of what persona non grata means and also well aware of politicans making tons of statements that have no legal weight. The fact that no newspaper in 1998 or 1999 or 200p appears to have covered a formal declaration by the Phillipine government is significant weight against the President's statement being binding or that Manila City Council had any authority beyond city limits. This is approaching WP:SYNTH territory. In fact the CHR statement heavily leans towards it being only city.Slywriter (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How about: "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by Manila City Council and the council also prohibited distribution of her films in the region." TolWol56 (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know Filipino law, but I would find it highly unusual that a city could overstep its jurisdiction and ban someone from the entire country. I could be declared persona non grata at a local bar, but they would not have the power to ban me from all bars. Any such ban is just a symbolic gesture as far as I can tell, because I'd bet dollars to donuts that she has no intention of going back there. But we need to not speculate, because speculation is a dangerous past-time. We can't look up the Wikipedia article on persona non grata and use that as proof that the ban was nationwide, because then we're moving from research into dangerous realm of synthesis. Just follow what the sources say and try not to read anything more into it. If sources disagree, then we should reflect that disagreement in the article. Zaereth (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Let me have your comment on my proposal posted above at 20:01. TolWol56 (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to ping. I have this on my watchlist. I agree with FireFangledFeathers. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and that a city can declare someone unwelcome in that city doesn't mean they have nationwide power to declare someone unwelcome in the entire country. All persona non grata means is that the person is no longer welcome, and anyone in authority can make that ruling within the limits of their jurisdiction. Nothing said above indicates otherwise. Zaereth (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already read that, this is why I proposed adding
 * "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by Manila City Council and the council also prohibited distribution of her films in the region."
 * While we have reliable sources that say the ban is countrywide, there are others who say it is citywide, but none of them are calling out each other.
 * According to WP:YESPOV, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes but not engage in them'". Unless the so-called 'dispute' is covered in reliable sources, it would not make sense to describe it per WP:SYNTH. This is why I think that we should avoid mention of the "Philippines" and only "Manila", in that particular sentence.
 * Now let me know about the proposed wording. TolWol56 (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The only dispute here is between you and Square. There is no dispute beyond that but if sources give conflicting information, then we have a duty to either reconcile the info or report both possibilities. For example, if a source says the first dogfight occurred during WWI, yet another source says it happened in the Mexican Revolution, then we could argue all day about what really defines a dogfight. I don't think it qualifies in the Mexican case, but it is found in sources and so we have both in the article. We're not describing any dispute. It is simply a matter of "Source A says this, but source B says that". The reader can come to their own conclusions. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, so how about this? "In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the Filipino officials. The restriction interpreted to be a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines also includes ban over the distribution of her films in the region." TolWol56 (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I had to unindent this, because it's going right off the side of my screen. That doesn't look bad, but there are flaws. The problem I see here is that the savvy reader will ask themselves, "Interpreted by whom?" Now, I'm not too invested in this, and the exact choice of wording should be worked out on the talk page, as it's not really a BLP violation. I mainly got involved because this was getting into a heated discussion about something totally off topic, when in fact SquareInARoundHole had some good points hidden there ... somewhere. And my bad for not thoroughly reading the sources from the start, but the point there was that the argument should be about sources and not each other.

That all aside, what I like about FireFangledFeathers' idea is a simple footnote explaining the source discrepancy, because you can bet that if you don't this won't be the last time you have this discussion. As long as there are conflicting sources people will keep trying to "correct" the article. And this isn't a BLP-only problem. This is all just policy in general. You see it in everything from scientific and technical articles to religion and metaphysics. To give an example, in some books the fossil ancestors of the moose are under the genus Alces, whereas in many others the genus is listed as Libralces and Cervalces. Might as well explain right there in the article why this is, or it's just going to keep coming up. Same with modern moose. Over and over on the talk page, there's an argument about whether there is one species or two. All depends on what source you happen to have in front of you (and someday when I have time it needs to be sorted out in the article as well). The point being, if you don't explain why sources conflict, you will just keep having these same conflicts all over again. But wording and stuff, I mean, this is all talk page stuff where everybody, including Square, should hammer this all out in a collaborative way. Zaereth (talk) 22:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes the words like 'interpreted' should be avoided and footnote should be used for explaining discrepancy. TolWol56 (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My main concern with this discrepancy is that very few sources claim that she was banned from the entire country, and none of them are more than a passing mention while talking about other events that all seem to be based on the same single CBS source which does not say she was banned by the president, nor that the ban was country-wide. Every single source that is actually about this specifically states that she was named a persona non grata by the city council, and ones that mention a ban specify Manila. I made an edit which specifically stated that it was a persona non grata declaration by the Manila city council, and added a footnote mentioning that some sources claim she was banned country-wide (and further briefly explained persona non grata in the Philippines), and @TolWol56 reverted that as well.
 * Furthermore, @TolWol56 simply reverts every single edit (including style fixes and improvements to the sources), making it impossible to collaborate. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anybody can be sure that The Guardian, Hollywood Reporter, Esquire, Far Eastern Economic Review, The Philippine Star, Kingsport Times-News and many others are not "very few sources" but a significant number.
 * As already told by multiple users above that this noticeboard concerns only BLP violation and that is not the case here. If you have any questions related to this dispute then ask me on the article's talk page and not here. TolWol56 (talk) 03:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet, source analysis shows that the sources closest to the event do not mention a country wide ban, only a President's hyperbole. Though, I suspect the solution is simple, another RfC should be done as consensus can change and this thread shows far more opinions on the issue than the previous.Slywriter (talk) 03:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The current version of the article looks pretty good to me, though I'd like to clarify that the "Filipino officials" were the Manila City Council. The status quo has "The restriction involved a ban from entering Manila or the Philippines" which is good, but not perfect, as some readers will take the "or" as inclusive and wonder (maybe) why we don't just say "the Philippines". If we're going to present both options in the body text, we should explain the source discrepancy there too. Article is fully protected for another week or so, so we can hash out the details. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * At first I was proposing Manila City Council but then someone questioned if they have the authority. This is why I changed the wording to "Filipino officials". As for the source discrepancy, it is present in the note and I think that is enough? TolWol56 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The question about authority was about whether or not the ban was country-wide. It is a clear fact that the Manila City Council issued the persona non grata declaration. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

This is still going on, or going on again. My position is as follows:

We have solid sourcing for the claim that the Manila city council declared Claire Danes persona non grata. There is not a shred of evidence that the city council proceeded to enact into law a ban on Claire Danes or her films. This is because it could not do so, either legitimately or practically. Manila is not a walled city with four gates; and I will be very surprised to learn that the Philippine Executive delegates questions of speech to city councils.

Nor did the Congress formally ban Claire Danes or her films, and no source says it did. Instead, what happened was the city council hit the credulous-foreign-reporter-jackpot. The resolution they passed was just censure. A purely political gesture, pandering to local opinion. They declared, "Claire Danes is banned, and all who sail in her", and the American press repeated it, without asking, "Wait, how does this ban work?", because it made good copy, thereby greatly amplifying it without costing the council anything. The president of the Philippines was happy to jump on board the publicity train, but doesn't seem to have been interested in spending any money or political capital turning the notional ban into a real boy. Since then, every reference in a puff-piece or vacuous listicle just repeats the original mistake, over and over.

None of the sources I have seen cited are much good, including the oldest ones. They all butcher the quotes that started the fire, quoting a condensed version stitched together by a wire-service reporter rather than going direct to the magazines. They repeat as fact that Danes's films are banned in the Philippines, when Danes herself claims only Brokedown Palace was affected, and there is independent reason to believe Terminator 3, Stardust, Me and Orson Welles, and The Family Stone—at a minimum—screened in the Philippines. It is perfectly obvious that all of the recent sources we have are garbage: for twenty years, not a single reporter has actually checked with anyone in the Philippines, preferring to take the last fellow's word for it, who was taking CBS's word for it, which was taking AP's word for it, which was taking the city council's word for it.

Conspicuously absent from the list of sources are serious-minded business or entertainment-industry reports about movie studios wrangling with the Philippine Dept. of the Interior or whatever agency would be administering the ban if it existed. If the ban was in force when Terminator 3 came out, and is in fact still in force now, why didn't the Philippines exact a price for the right to show that movie in its market? Why didn't the studio thrust Danes in front of a camera to make another, better apology? Not a peep. Because there is no ban; it's just business as usual. There is nothing to talk about in the serious press, because there is nothing to talk about.

The claim that Danes is banned from entering Manila is risible; do they have roadblocks set up? The claim that she is banned from entering the Philippines is unsupported. The claim that her films are banned is no better supported, and must admit (explain?) numerous significant exceptions. So: we have a set of claims which are poorly sourced and which are the subject of active contention, right here and now. It is my position that WP:BLP demands either a fairly exhaustive outline of the facts, the claims, and all the caveats—which I would oppose on WP:UNDUE grounds—or a conservative statement of only those facts known to be true. My proposal:

"In 1998, Danes was declared persona non grata by the city council of Manila in reaction to comments she made in interviews following the shoot of Brokedown Palace."

In its current form (which may not last long (and, sure enough, has been reverted before I am finished writing the present wall of text)), this is supplemented with the complete Premiere and Vogue quotes, in footnotes.

Now. To the counter-arguments. Several editors are unsatisfied with anything less than the full-throated claims that Claire Danes is banned, either from Manila or from the Philippines, and that her films are banned in either Manila or the Philippines. But they seem unable to grapple with the issues. One problem appears to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy, or perhaps an inability to distinguish quality reporting from regurgitation. I think at least one editor believes that if a publication appears in green in the perennial sources list, everything it prints is automatically reliable. I have also noticed that the other side is quick to insinuate racism, whitewashing, and bad faith. I am told I am pushing a pov; but Claire Danes means nothing to me. I was pinged because I was in the history, but that's only because Danes has a name ending in s, and I gnome pages into compliance with MOS:'S.

The claim is advanced that it is impossible for many sources all to be wrong. Has that been your experience? One person might be wrong, but if twenty people say it, it must be true? We are told that Danes hasn't won an Oscar because she is a racist; that the discussion of the "ban" needs to be at least as long as paragraphs at The Beatles, Jerry Vlasak, and Michael Savage, because Danes is more popular than those figures, or less popular, take your pick; that it's okay to get this wrong because it's a work in progress; that Cracked is a serious source. Wikipedia guidelines and policies are cited willy-nilly, one after another; a big scary discretionary sanctions alert box appears on my talk page, along with "you have been told"; the paragraph needs to be longer, but if we write out Danes's offensive quotes in full or mention her age at the time, it's too long, it's bloated, it's a quotefarm. The whole thing is exhausting, and it's meant to be. I am supposed to throw up my hands and move on. If you feel my summary of the counter-arguments is light on substance, that is how I feel about the counter-arguments. Believe me, I wish there were more of substance to report.

Last time this issue was brought up here, this noticeboard didn't exactly cover itself in glory. The discussion hadn't started before it got bogged down in arguments over the semantics of "whitewashing". I will say I think was quite right to detect the insinuation that their edits were racially motivated, though I think it was a mistake to say, "but I am not white". Let's try to keep our eyes on the ball, this time.

I feel I have been pretty patient; I feel SquareInARoundHole has been extremely patient. I'd like to see some support from the community for the principle of caution detailed in WP:BLP.

"Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—" Regulov (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * , I have opined and included evidence the ban does not extend to streaming, if it exists at all.Slywriter (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Regulov: not a single reporter has actually checked with anyone in the Philippines, preferring to take the last fellow's word for it, who was taking CBS's word for it, which was taking AP's word for it, which was taking the city council's word for it.
 * What's worse is that the city council stated they did not have the authority to ban her from entry, and at least one councilor doubted their authority to ban her films. The tertiary sources don't include that, and the other editors are ignoring the secondary sources in order to prefer the most wrong tertiary sources possible. This went from "We will ban Claire Danes's films from Manila." to "Claire Danes was banned from the Philippines." The fact that this has been so hard to correct over the course of several years on her article is absurd, and of course, it's increasingly frustrating that we are being accused of challenging the content under BLP and Wikipedia standards with bad faith and personal opinions. This should be the easiest error on Wikipedia to correct, and yet, here we are, having to ask for administrative intervention. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: I don't believe the RFC is enough at this point. Regulov, in good faith per WP:BLP, decided to boldly enforce the policy and removed the contentious material. I added the quotes from the magazines in the citations. This was all reverted, claiming it was the editor's personal opinion, and not a legitimate concern under BLP policies. The standards seem to clearly state we need to fix Danes's article immediately. It is concerning to me that editors are synthesizing a narrative and cherrypicking subpar tertiary sources (bypassing every single secondary source) to stonewall a status quo that is verifiably false. I am trying my best to be brief here and not bludgeon the process, but I'm learning how to properly raise concerns and I'm hoping this is a better outline of my concern.

The violation of BLP is as such:
 * Per WP:BLPSTYLE:
 * BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects.
 * Status quo uses only tertiary sources, two of which are only passing mentions in articles about other events/people and one is a random citation in a college thesis about the portrayal of female criminals in movies, which briefly mentions she was unwelcome in a citation, despite an abundance of reliable secondary sources, and even superior tertiary sources which actively contradict status quo. These are all listed in the RFC.


 * ``She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned,″ said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila’s mayor... Councilor Julio Logarta, one of the three who voted against the resolution, said the ban was a curtailment of freedom of expression... Logarta also questioned the council’s authority to ban movies.


 * Claire Danes is persona non grata in Manila, Philippines, after the City Council voted 23-3 Tuesday to ban her films.


 * Manila's city council on Tuesday banned all movies of Claire Danes... "She is declared persona non grata. All her films will be banned," said councilor Kim Atienza, the principal sponsor of the resolution and a son of Manila's mayor.


 * But Danes went "overboard" in Premiere, Atienza claims, and the Manila city council will discuss next week whether to ban all of the thespian's films... "She painted a surreal picture of Manila," Atienza said. "Those are irresponsible, bigoted and sweeping statements that we cannot accept. We cannot stop her from coming back because that is a diplomatic decision. But we can stop theaters in Manila from showing her films."


 * After the publication of two interviews in which 19-year-old Claire Danes said unkind things about Manila, the city council voted 23-3 this week to ban her movies... "This resolution is in fact abridging her rights," said opposing city council member Julio Logarta. "Most of what she said is true." Logarta doubted that the council has the authority to enforce a ban.


 * There's also evidence the persona non grata is also no longer in effect:
 * Claire Danes has apologized for those not-so-nice comments she made this year about Manila, and now all is swell between her and the Philippines...Her movies were banned, but they’ve been brought back now that she sent the city council an official letter of apology.


 * She has apologized many times. Clare Danes was young and careless then and has matured to be more responsible and retrospect in her observations. Clare is very welcome if she wants to.


 * There is no actual reporting that any of her films weren't shown in Manila (or the Philippines for that matter) because of the persona non grata, but there is reporting that several of her films were screened in the region, including (but not limited to) Terminator 3, Stardust, and The Family Stone. Me and Orson Welles was also reviewed in the region.


 * Per WP:BLPGOSSIP:
 * Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of relying on sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources.
 * Status quo relies on tertiary sources previously mentioned, the crux of which weasely provide false authority that a ban on Danes from entering or her films being screened in the Philippines was still in place. "as far as we can tell" is weasling. Two of them are about Dan Brown and state that the president of the Philippines banned Danes from entering the country in 1999, despite that this is verifiably false.
 * Per WP:BLPREMOVE:
 * Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that... relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.
 * Because status quo violates those two BLP standards, Regulov was correct to remove it, as I, and others, had done before, regardless of the RFC.
 * Further, status quo is violating WP:PMC, in that it is misquoting Danes. The misquote is from a reliable source, but is a regurgitation of the original misquote from 1998. The actual quote is still readily available (I work in archives at a publication and obtained the quotes from the respective 1998 magazines, you can also find these in libraries, etc).
 * Actual passages from the magazines:


 * The shoot was plagued with malaria and hepatitis outbreaks, and had to be shut down for several sick days. "It was just so hard," Danes says, now comfortably ensconced at a Beverly Hills lunch joint, where she's gobbling up a plate of extra-rare ahi. "The place just fucking smelled of cockroaches. There's no sewage system in Manila, and people have nothing there. [We saw] people with, like, no arms, no legs, no eyes, no teeth. We shot in a real [psychiatric] hospital, so takes would be interrupted by wailing women--like, 'Cut! Screaming person.' Rats were everywhere." - Spines, Christine (October 1998). "Claire and Present Danger". Premiere. p. 66.


 * Danes's first film without her mother was shot in the Philippines this past winter. It was, she says, "utter hell to make. Manila is such a ghastly place." - Van Meter, Jonathan (July 1998). "Perfectly Claire". Vogue. p. 118.

SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ruja Ignatova
I'm a little concerned about some of the claims that are being made on the page. There are several anonymous editors making claims that appear, to me, to be poorly sourced. In particular, the name of her husband doesn't seem to be reported by most reputable sources but is being listed by some, in my opinion, poor sources. I don't feel particularly competent to assess the quality of the sources and I don't have a huge amount of experience working with BLP. My reading of WP:BLP is "If verifiability is in doubt, remove" but I'd appreciate a second (or third) opinion.--Hazel77 talk 20:06, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed that mainly because of WP:BLPNAME. We don't name family members unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own article, and we most certainly don't link their name to sources about alleged criminal actions as if they are wikilinks in disguise. Zaereth (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Adam Bakri
Looks like nationality warring--subject has self-identified as Israeli-Palestinian, but there seems to be an effort to expunge half of that. More eyes, and page protection if necessary. Thanks, 2601:188:180:B8E0:0:0:0:3597 (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:ETHNICITY, the lead should mention his nationalities (preferably citizenship) over ethnicity but with the support of RS. How do RS generally describe him? Does he hold an Israeli or Palestinian passport or both? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Mikey Walsh
Author wikipedia page has been targeted by online by online vandalism, false reasons of mass deletion and mass removing of articles, including Wiki approved images
 * Please provide evidence of anything removed improperly.Slywriter (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)


 * please excuse as not familiar with functions of Wiki. the User:Thurlow0391 has made multiple changes in the last hour, removing several cited articles, removing the profile image that was wiki approved. adding a cite from a far right blog, and claiming that the author themselves has created the page as their reason for mass deletion. so many cited articles removed it has triggered an article requiring notable sources. the vadndalist removed all of them. have undone most of their vandalism but they come back and redo it again. page would probably be helpful to have a kind of lock to stop the targeted vandalism 89.241.224.16 (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Continued Vandalism on page from User: Thurlow0391 deleting large amounts of cited links and information based on what appears personal opinion/vendetta of Mikey Walsh have undone their changes but they are quick undone again. they have also triggered a speedy deletion of the page based on a lack on cited information, which they are accountable for deleting. suspending of user, undoing their changes and a lock on this page would be very helpful Charmainetstone93 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I repeat please identify and show actual policy violations. You not liking their edits is not a policy based reason. Content must be sourced and verifiable.Slywriter (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is at least the fifth time Walsh's biography is discussed on this forum. I think only this discussion about film adaption is relevant. I objected using Politicalite, which 89.241.224.16 describes as "a far right blog", and removed it in January, but the source has been restored by two different users, and is currently in the article. Politrukki (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Jerome Laxale
There is a current discussion on this page with another editor who is wanting to include exhaustive detail about a story that is just allegations at this stage and reported by mostly tabloid sources in conservative media. I have been accused of censorship and sanitising the information, but am merely wanting not to place undue weight on a story that does not warrant more than a passing mention at this stage as its mostly gossip from anonymous sources published from only one side of the political spectrum. Would appreciate some more input or contributions to the discussion to help establish some consensus as to the right way forward here, given the history (and future risk) of edit warring on this page.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to clean up some of the language to make it concise and clearer. In general, each contentious detail that is to be included must be supported by multiple reliable sources per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Great work, I agree with your changes, thanks.Siegfried Nugent (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Is Karine Jean-Pierre a conspiracy theorist?
Karine Jean-Pierre replaced Jen Psaki as the White House press secretary a couple of weeks ago, and became thereby much more interesting to a small group of our editors, including IPs. (The article is currently semiprotected, but only for 48 hours.) There's edit warring and general disagreement about two 2020 tweets by Jean-Pierre alleging that Republican Brian Kemp stole the 2018 gubernatorial election from Democrat Stacey Abrams. Do these tweets make Jean-Pierre a 'stolen elections conspiracy theorist'? is the question, with accusations of 'whitewashing' against editors who think not. The problem is really that too few editors are discussing, and both article and talkpage could really do with more eyes. Bishonen &#124; tålk 20:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC).
 * Unless mainstream reliable sources are asserting she is a conspiracy theorist, no. PRAXIDICAE💕  20:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, with the caveat that they can't be sourced to WP:RSOPINION. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Not every opinion should be in an article. PRAXIDICAE💕  20:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are, in fact, multiple sources referring to her claims as conspiracy theories and as false. Wikipedia should not sugarcoat on behalf of those who seek to undermine democracy by denying the legitimacy of elections; not all opinions are equal and valid, and claiming elections are stolen are among those that are invalid. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 21:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * of course Raffensperger would call a Biden appointment a conspiracy theorist. PRAXIDICAE💕  21:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Toa just re-reverted me to restore wikivoice statements about false claims and conspiracy theories. The Mediaite entry at RSP says "marginally reliable", which to me reads as "don't use this for contentious BLP claims". The Henry Herald is the local paper for a tiny city. Unless there's more reliable sourcing, contentious claims based solely on these two is a deep enough NPOV problem to also be a BLP problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * TheWrap should be reliable. Their story. I've just added another ref from the Independent Journal Review, which is a member of the News Media Alliance. There's no reason to imagine Mediaite just made up a direct statement from Psaki, and their story was republished by Yahoo news:

Psaki told Mediaite “We all agree the 2018 election in Georgia is settled. And we’re also all concerned about voter suppression issues, including the President. Kemp won and she sees that tweet as having oversimplified the problem.” Addressing the 2016 tweet, Psaki said that Jean-Pierre “has affirmed that Donald Trump won in 2016, too. Like so many of us, Karine was concerned about the U.S. intelligence community’s unanimous finding that Russia intervened to help Trump. But he won.”
 * YoPienso (talk) 22:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Toa Nidhiki05, I totally feel for you--"Really a shame to see editors defending conspiracy theories here - I expect better". By the same token, in the same edit summary you said, "Revert unexplained removal of content", even though your reverters, two of them (meaning you don't have consensus for your edits), said "ouch! I'm partially reverting just to remove the "unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories", which is a BLP vio. I think the rest of my changes were improvements, but those can wait for consensus at talk" and "Don't use this for contentious BLP claims". So riddle me this. Two editors revert you, and explain what they are doing. You, on the other hand, offer "Rv whitewashing", and a clear violation of AGF by way of some personal accusations. And on top of that, which part of "if it's contentious, don't put it in article space" is not clear to you? Drmies (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I stand by everything I said. It's embarrassing that editors are so insistent on not reporting what sources say about her claims - which is that they are both false and conspiracy theories. There's no justification for it and I expect better. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are going to call someone a conspiracy theorist in wikivoice, it should be a claim made across a vast number of RSes, otherwise it must be both attributed and should be weighted on inclusion per UNDUE. For example, we fairly can call Alec Jones a conspiracy theorist as that is a very common descriptor in RSes. This doesn't appear to be the case for Jean Pierre, cherry picking from a few weak RSes, so absolutely not. --M asem (t) 23:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Saying someone promoted a conspiracy theory isn't the same as saying they are a conspiracy theorist (no tag was added to the article), but the idea that the 2016 and 2018 elections were rigged is absolutely a conspiracy theory. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 23:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is still a contract if RSes routine do not state that those claims are directly about the conspiracy theories -- that's original research to take what was said and call it a conspiracy theory. And if only a few sources with questionable reliability are making that call, that's probably not important for us to pick up on. BLPs are not for trying to highlight every negative thing said about a person. ---M asem (t) 23:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * These sources are in no way sufficient for negative claims about a BLP. As outlined at WP:RSP, The Wrap is reliable for "entertainment news and media analysis" (which this isn't) and there's no consensus about its reliability on other subjects. And there's no consensus about the reliability of Independent Journal Review, either. The Yahoo source is just The Wrap again. Controversial/negative claims about BLPs require impeccable sources, and often several of them. Woodroar (talk) 23:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, The Wrap is a poor source in this case, not up to BLP quality. --Hipal (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * She should not be labelled a conspiracy theorist unless a vast number of RS are calling her that, which does not appear to be the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did User:Masem and User:Hipal read the article? or just this noticeboard? KJP is not called a conspiracy in wikivoice; that allegation is clearly made by Brad Raffensperger. Also, it's the attempt to give Psaki's defense of KJP that is being reverted, not the allegation. (Psaki explains that KJP now accepts the electoral results.) YoPienso (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that I look closer, the Henry Herald source is actually a press release from Raffensperger himself. So it's an WP:SPS, absolutely unacceptable for claims about other living persons. And that's why we generally don't trust tiny local papers like this. Woodroar (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And the author of second source, which is Mediaite, also writes for The Daily Caller, deprecated for publishing false news (the article itself.  Doug Weller  talk 10:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No, per Masem. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP, and if consensus says include, then it's WP:INTEXT. An opinion is still an opinion even if multiple news sources publish it, especially in the echo chamber. Isn't it generally accepted that when a political opponent claims an election was stolen that it's automatically a conspiracy theory? Regardless, it's an opinion until it is proven to be factual. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.2em 0.2em,#BFFF00 0.4em 0.4em 0.5em;color:#A2006D"> Atsme  💬 📧 17:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no. Even if RSs say she is, and I suspect it would not be a significant number of them, this sort of thing doesn't rise to the level where we should be applying such a LABEL.  Even if we did have a lot of RS claiming this, it is an inherently subjective claim and thus per LABEL and BLP guidance we would only include this as an attributed claim (even if she 100% believes the election was stolen AND we have strong evidence against her claims).  Springee (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Constable


Aislingrose18 conveys an ostensible request from Constable to remove a reference to a positive drug test and subsequent ban. I'd initially reverted, thinking the sources sufficient, but upon further consideration, I worry they may run afoul of WP:BLPPRIMARY. We just have a table from UCI and a press release from Sport Integrity Australia, two primary sources. Even if this survives BLPPRIMARY scrutiny, I think it raises the question of the ethics of including such material on a page that essentially exists to turn some links blue on some tables of competition results. So I've self-reverted for now, and bring this here for others' thoughts. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 07:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep, BLPPRIMARY, UNDUE Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Is the widely published name of a home a BLP violation?
The New York Times, Business Insider, the Associated Press, Atlanta Magazine, and others  all report the name of Kelly Loeffler's home as being Descante. Is is a BLP violation to include this name in the article? This is not private personal information per WP:BLPPRIVACY: it is not a cause of identity theft, it is not contact information, it is not original research, it is not self-published. Reywas92Talk 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the edit history, multiple users have removed this on BLP grounds. Rather than edit warring, a WP:RFC on the article talk page could get you more eyes over 30 days to gain a consensus for inclusion or exclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At first glance, I don't see what the BLP vio would be, but I also don't really want to start digging through all these source trying to come up with a theory. It's possible that it may be, but what part of policy does it specifically violate? What is your theory? The bigger question I would have is, what does it matter? I mean, were not talking about Graceland here. Why is it important to know what someone named their property? What specifically does this tell the reader about the subject? Unless there is some significance to it, it seems like boring trivia that would better be left out as irrelevant or pointless to the story. Zaereth (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe the objection (WP:BLPPRIVACY) is the name and the city leads to the postal address easy due to Google given the low value of inclusion. This is a good faith objection that should be resolved by consensus for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I should ask to confirm though. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd have to agree with Masem below. She's a public figure, and as such the expectations of privacy are much lower. But that still doesn't answer the question of why it needs to be in the article. That's a question that should be answered to the reader within the article, because information should be able to demonstrate its own significance, or else it's just trivia. But that's better worked out on the talk page, at an RFC, or maybe at DRN . Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what it's doing at this board — did I call the name of the house a BLP violation? (Checks. No.) I removed it for the practical reason that it made it easier for bad actors to find Loeffler, just as you surmise, . Of course it's published elsewhere, but Wikipedia is widely read, and why should we risk triggering a reader to go look? Especially as it's uninteresting trivia. Bishonen &#124; tålk 07:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC).
 * 99% sure that for relatively famous PUBLICFIGUREs, you can search and find their address rather easily, named home or not. What we do not want is to give the exact address (city at most in terms of detail), unless the home itself is actually notable. --M asem (t) 01:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't see this being a BLP issue for a PUBLICFIGURE, particularly with the quality of sourcing (Times + AP to start). I also don't see any immediate privacy issues, compared with, say, if Samuel Alito's home was named in the wake of the potential abortion ruling from SCOTUS (and that's a stretch). For a relatively unknown figure, however, this would be something to be concerned about including, but definitely not the case for Loeffler. --M asem (t) 00:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Enlightenment comes from considering why personal information should be included in a BLP article. Exactly what encyclopedic information is provided by naming a person's house, other than leading crazies to politicians' doorsteps? You will be blocked if you post that information again without the support of an RfC on article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, you're going to threaten me with an effing block about something that's been sourced on the article for two years? This is not personal information, it's public information about a public figure, not something Wikipedia needs to be protecting. Is the New York Times leading crazies to DESCANTE and politicians' doorsteps because they published this? The name is not the same as Kelly Loeffler's address, which actually is listed as personal information under WP:BLPPRIVACY. Utter bonkers to think that people would be going to this (no-longer-a-politician's) (fenced-off) house just because of this. Moreover, the WP:STATUSQUO is with the information, and an RFC should be needed to remove it. Reywas92Talk 01:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:STATUSQUO is an essay (see that yellow box in there?) while WP:BLPUNDEL and WP:ONUS are explicit policies. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. Disputed content in a BLP is treated with a much higher degree of scrutiny, and we generally err on the side of caution. Keep in mind that while BLP works with all other policies, but it ultimately trumps all other policies. That means leaving the disputed content out until consensus is achieved to include. Getting mad isn't going to help your case any. It will only hurt it, and edit warring is never a good way to sway others to your point of view. This is all counterproductive to your goals. As an encyclopedia, we are here to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. The very nature of summarizing means cutting out all the boring details and whittling it down to the raw essentials; the nitty gritty. The question is simple. Why should I, the reader, care about this little tidbit of otherwise seemingly useless information? I'd equate it to her favorite cereal, name of her first dog, or her weight and height. Reading it makes me think, wtf? Why am I reading this? What is the point here? Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I really don't see how that edit helps not 'lead crazies to politicans doorsteps', since the linked citation lists the name of the estate. Cononsense (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is that anyone with an "interest" in a person will read the Wikipedia article but may never see the dozens of other websites that mention the subject. For example, there are several articles about abuse victims where easily discoverable personal information is not in the article. The reason for that is as mentioned above, namely that knowing stuff like where a person (WP:BLP) currently lives has no encyclopedic value (WP:DUE). It does have gossip value, but this is not a gossip site. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Background = Kelly Loeffler talk page thread Personal life (re record residential Atlanta real estate deal, Update. Bishonen did not mention WP:BLPPRIVACY, I and another editor did, I also brought up WP:BLPUNDEL, subsequently others have done so too. I'm glad to see more people agreeing WP:BLP should be followed, but not hopeful that the slightly misleading header will be fixed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is being talked about by reliable sources. There are multiple reliable sources discussing the connection between the home and the person in detail. The name is widely publicized. It is not an address. The mansion itself would easily pass WP:GNG.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Great. But just because something is found in reliable sources doesn't automatically make it worth including. Lot's of sources discuss what Kim Kardashian had for breakfast this morning, but that's trivial information and not worthy of an encyclopedia. Everyone seems to be avoiding the simple question: why is this important for the reader to know? Seriously, as an outsider who has never heard of the subject before, my mind can easily be changed, but no one is making any argument as to why it needs to be there. The more interesting question is, why is it so important to you? Zaereth (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is not. But if you could create an article for the mansion then we'd normally link to that article anyways!Lurking shadow (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could've, would've, should've. It still doesn't answer the question of why it needs to be in this article. I mean, seriously. I'd like to know. What is the point, because that's what the reader will be asking themselves. If information cannot demonstrate its own importance then its not information at all. It's just useless filler. Zaereth (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If a notable person owns a notable residence I would like to know that and there is clear public interest (and encyclopedic value) in that. Thats clearly not what our BLP protections are for. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Is it a notable residence? I see no indication of that from reading the article. I mean, I've heard of Graceland and the Ponderosa, but I've never heard of whatever this place is called. To ask it another way, did the story lose anything by removing the name? Or does it read just the same? As an analogy, does the name of a rape victim add anything to the article of a convicted rapist. Or would it read just the same is we simply use a generic term like "victim"? In general, names like these are meaningless to the general reader. Nobody cares about a faceless name. Unless there is a good reason, what is harmed by omitting it? I know it's not a BLP question; that's already been established to my satisfaction (albeit not to everyone else'). But I am curious since nobody seems to be able to answer what is a very basic and simple question. Could it be that it's not necessary? Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to make the argument that it's not interesting or necessary, that's fine. But instead people removed it because it was "leading crazies right to politicians' doorsteps" with implications of BLP issues, which has no basis. Reywas92Talk 21:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, it seems much more like a DUE issue than a BLP issue. I'm wondering if this residence is locally famous. I know for example, of some famous residences where I live (washington d.c), which may be situationally due in articles, but I would struggle to name anything in atlanta. Cononsense (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's a valid argument, and also one I'm willing to give serious consideration. But to me, I'd be asking the same question if we were talking about some trivia being added to the capacitor article. Honestly, at this point, for me, it's just a deep curiosity about human nature, because it always fascinates me when people want something so badly yet can't tell anyone why. It's one of those human oddities that comes up ever so often, especially around anything political. Personally, I'm pragmatic, and feel that information is only as good as the results it produces. As someone who's been trained in encyclopedic writing since long before the internet was even a dream in someone's mind, I like to think I have a certain knowledge on what is expected from them. If there is a good reason to include, then wonderful, I'm all for it. If there is not, then it's just useless filler which will only annoy the average reader. The goal should be to give the most information in the fewest words possible, so anything we can cut that is unnecessary is a good thing. If there is a concern of revealing someone's private address, then I am very sympathetic to that concern, especially since there is no "overriding public need", as the SPJ would put it. But my real fascination at this point is why is such a simple dispute over such a tiny, insignificant detail being so blown out of proportion? Zaereth (talk) 22:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A google search for "Descante" without mentioning the BLP returns immediate results solely for this residence. If thats not a notable residence I don't know what is. Its sale to the BLP subject was the largest single family property transaction in Atlanta history, you can argue thats only of regional significance, but its hard to argue it isn't significant and its impossible to argue that the purchaser of such a property has a reasonable expectation of privacy. The ownership or creation of a notable residence is a significant accomplishment of encyclopedic value, for example an encyclopedia entry about P. T. Barnum would be remiss if it didn't mention Iranistan. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 03:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * When I google "Descante" the first two hits I get are about a California company named Descante Design, the third is realtor.com about the house without mentioning the purchaser, the fourth and fifth are references to Portuguese and Spanish dictionaries. So much for the claims re googling. As for the claim that the purchaser had no reasonable expectation of privacy, my idea of "reasonable expectation" is that editors here on WP:BLPN will concern themselves with WP:BLP. It says no "contact information for living persons", it says remove "personal information such as phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.", it does not say to ignore "good-faith BLP objections". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Google tailors results based on who does the googling, even for you it returns the residence under question among the top three results. Google generally returns nine results, were the rest about this house? This is no more contact information requiring BLP oversight than "Elizabeth II resides at Buckingham Palace" is. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Re "Google tailors results" -- that's my point. Re "were the rest about this house?" -- no. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought your point was that this was contact information and the quibbling over whether a google search for the residence returned some or many results was just a side bar discussion. I haven't noticed you running over to Elizabeth II to scrub her contact info so you must not believe that it actually is contact info of the sort that is a BLP concern. Or are we to treat different public figures differently? We don't really acknowledge different levels of public figure, for our purposes anything that applies to Kelly Loeffler also applies Elizabeth II. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Bronze Age Pervert argument about stating his real name
See bottom thread at Talk:Bronze Age Pervert I didn’t link to it as it mentions a name and I don’t know if it’s correct. Doug Weller talk 19:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * this seems like an OSPOL#1 thing if sources can’t be provided. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Mhawk10 Thanks. I and another Admin have cleaned up the talk page and article, the editor's been blocked for outing and socking. Doug Weller  talk 14:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Great news! Would you also be willing to suppress the edit on that page made on 20:43, 4 June 2022, since that seems to be related to this? — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, there seems to be some disagreement as to whether it's libelous but not about hiding it through some Admin process. Doug Weller  talk 15:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)