Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive343

Jasmine Shimoda
Hello, I am the subject of a Wikipedia page with damaging and false information about me being added by a particular source. I have I edited the damaging I claims against me but they just get restored. I  am not a public figure by any means and wish this biography / page to be deleted please so I  do no have to endure this emotional stress and constant threat to my reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:570E:AA00:45E9:BEA6:793B:EFE4 (talk) 19:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have restored the article to the state before the objected to information was added, and someone else has nominated for deletion. I agree that the section on an adult video career should not be in the article. It was sourced to a primary source for awards given to someone with a different name, and a single passing mention of having been someone's colleague before dating them, which certainly didn't cut the mustard when it comes to sourcing a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Laurens van der Post
I know that he has been dead for over 25 years, but I presume his daughter (and maybe the mother) is still alive. After his death it came out that in the early 1950s van der Post had a sexual relationship with and impregnated a 14 year old girl, who later gave birth to a daughter. NYTimes:And when it came to women, der Post was a bounder. In the early 1950's, when he was 46, he seduced the 14-year-old daughter of a wealthy South African winemaking family, who had been entrusted to his care during a sea voyage. She became pregnant, and although he sent her a small stipend, he never publicly acknowledged the daughter born of the relationship Observer: Documents found by the biographer J D F Jones, have confirmed allegations that Van der Post had a secret child after an illicit affair with a 14-year-old girl. After the author's death in 1996, Cari Mostert sensationally came forward to claim she was his illegitimate daughter and that her underage mother had been seduced during a boat trip to England. The article currently states that van der Post sexually abused the 14 year old girl. The sexual abuse language is supported by some more recent sources. A new editor wants to change this to an "affair". I strongly prefer the current language, but I would like to hear others thoughts on the matter. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Marius Stravinsky
The article about Marius_Stravinsky was recently filled with a link to the Times article that has absolutely no connection to the person and is therefore libelous. This person's page has been constantly edited with various defamatory information (see the story of edits). The link to Marius's official website has been removed without reason. Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marius_Stravinsky&type=revision&diff=1116453683&oldid=1111530142 — Preceding unsigned comment added by EllieHill (talk • contribs) 14:08, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This addition is clearly unfitting since the source (a generally good one) doesn't mention Stravinsky, so any connection is WP:OR. There's also WP:PROPORTION to consider. Ping to @ClassicPaparazzi1 who added the content. I fixed the WP:EL: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi and thank you! Although the article doesn't mention Stravinsky explicitly, it is well known that Marina Safronova is his girlfriend (wife). Stravinsky even officially posted pictures with her on his Facebook account, the pictures are from his flat. It seems that Wikipedia is (should be) about true facts and not yet another platform for a person to portray himself in a falsified (much better) manner. ClassicPaparazzi1 (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Sock RAN1 (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS independent of the subject (it may not be), some WP:ABOUTSELF possibly allowed. Follow WP:BLP strictly and all will be well. Hopefully. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And "well-known" seems a bit of a stretch: Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting that the Russian "official website" here appears to be some sort of prank on or possibly harassment of the subject. More eyes on the article could be useful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely an attack page. The correct website is . I think we need to look further into EllieHill's relationship with Stravinsky. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We should probably redact any edits that contain a link to the attack site. Definitely a BLP violation. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No objections. @Blablubbs, are you up for it? This thread and the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have revision-deleted parts of the article history per the "smears" and "harassment" bits of WP:RD2 and WP:RD3 – this is perhaps a debatable action, so I would invite other administrators to double-check. I don't think this thread needs redacting, though. --Blablubbs (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * CP1 has been blocked as a sock. This appears be part of a long running campaign against Stravinsky that has been going on for over a year, see The page should be indefinitely semi-protected to prevent further BLP vios from throwaway accounts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think an indef semi is going to fly at RFPP, so I've watchlisted it. RAN1 (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've blocked ClassicPaparazzi1 and semiprotected the article for a year. It looks like there have been similar issues on ruwiki as well. --Blablubbs (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Jacqueline Keeler
I'm opening a discussion here to discuss the reliability of an article published on self-publishing platform Substack for its use in a biography of a living person. The article was published by Kim Tallbear, a professor at the University of Alberta, on her own substack-hosted blog. I've argued that the source should not be used as a third-party source for facts related to the biography subject, since WP:SPS notes that [n]ever use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer (emphasis in source, internal link omitted) and WP:BLPSPS notes that we should ever use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (emphasis in source, internal links omitted).The article subject is Jacqueline Keeler, who is not Kim TallBear, though TallBear's substack is used in a section on Keeler's "Career and Activism" as a source for facts. The blogpost is evidently reliable for reporting what TallBear wrote on her own blog, but I don't think that this is the sort of thing that's appropriate to include in a BLP. I removed a reference to the source in this edit (and again in this edit), but reference to the self-published blogpost as a source for facts was restored in subsequent edits by and, respectively. My removal of the material sourced to a self-published blogpost was challenged explicitly on the talk page by, who said that self-published SMEs are fine to use in this context. I'm bringing this to this board because I believe that the use of the self-published substack, while an expert source, violates our sourcing policies with respect to biographies of living persons, and I would like community discussion surrounding the appropriateness of the use of self-published SME sources in this article. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Source:
 * Source:
 * WP:BLPSPS is clear. WP:SPS is also clear. Substack is a self-publishing platform, and so Kim TallBear's Substack cannot be used as a source for Jacqueline Keeler or any other living person, in any article. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would further note that "pollennationmagazine.com" no longer exists and when it did exist, Keeler was apparently the EIC - it's not clear it is a reliable source (I would argue similarly for powwows.com which similarly does not appear to have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). Hipocrite (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The source from Pollen Nation was written by Keeler and is being used as an SPS in an WP:ABOUTSELF way to support (1) the fact that Keeler keeps list is kept in a google spreadsheet and (2) the date of the spreadsheet's release. Use (1) seems a bit superfluous, and I'll remove it from the article shortly as such, but I don't think it's a BLP issue per se. Use (2) seems fine. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

James Gordon Meek
I created an article for James Gordon Meek shortly after reading a Rolling Stone article about a FBI raid on his home earlier this year. It now appears that that article was not entirely correct. It implied that his home was raided due to his involvement in classified US government activities abroad. Now it has been revealed that the raid was for something else and that Meek has not “disappeared” but has been living with his mother. More recent articles have reported that resigning his position at ABC news was to save his colleagues from embarrassment.

Any eyes on the article would be great as I imagine there’s lots of conspiracy theories online. Thriley (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Rolling Stone is a rather poor source for anything except music or entertainment, per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. For contentious or controversial claims about living people, it should be strongly avoided. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. I should have known better. I guess this is another nail in their coffin. Thriley (talk) 02:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Out of an abundance of caution, per WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:RECENTISM, I've removed content sourced exclusively to Rolling Stone and the Raw Story (laundered by Salon), both red on WP:RSPS. It seems most other outlets covering this are highly gossipy: Radar Online and the Daily Beast's "Confider" column . Deadline.com simply uncritically recaps the Rolling Stone report, noting Rolling Stone is a sister publication. Notability may need to be re-evaluated. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul Morantz
In the last 24 hours 2 different IPs have edited Paul Morantz to add his death. A quick Google search has not found any news of his death, so I have reverted both times. Pending news of his death from reliable sources, his page should be monitored for attempts to add such to it. - Donald Albury 18:33, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I have now semi-protected the article for 2 days. Donald Albury 18:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Mehmet Oz and John Fetterman
A paragraph originally written for John Fetterman was today copied wholesale into the article on Oz. It's obvious to me that this is a thoroughly one-sided presentation of the issues it covers. So, I removed it on that basis. My removal has now been reverted (by someone who apparently doesn't know about WP:BRD). I don't intend to edit-war about it -- I'll leave it to others to evaluate, weigh in, act, etc. (I've added an NPOV tag to the Fetterman article.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have removed the RSOPINION laundry list of media as synthesis. What is the other side for the debate negotiation reported by RS? How did RS report on the debate after it happened or is it too one-sided also? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The NY Times has a balanced assessment, including: "he was also fluent enough over the course of the hour to present his Democratic vision for a state that could determine control of the Senate." . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. The candidates' articles should focus on their respective debate performances. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent additions to Carlos Hank Rhon
Please could some experienced eyes take a look at the recent editions to Carlos Hank Rhon? This diff is the one that concerns me. I just blocked a bunch of CU-confirmed socks that were trying to remove the info, but I have my own concerns about it, in terms of the way it is phrased, and also that it appears to be reporting as fact an involvement in drug trafficking which I think are only accusations in a leaked report. There are some reliable sources there, but I think it needs to be reworked to ensure that we are complying with WP:V and WP:BLP. I don't want to get WP:INVOLVED in the content matter though, since in blocking the socks I have been acting in an administrative capacity at the page. Thanks in advance. Girth Summit  (blether) 10:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I did an initial rewrite to attribute the reports, since the settlement was the no-wrongdoing variety, I'll round it out by tomorrow. RAN1 (talk) 06:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Paul R. McHugh
Paul R. McHugh

I have read the book "The Perspectives of Psychiatry" (2nd edition) and several papers by Dr. McHugh, and I do not think that this Wikipedia page reflects his work or ideas. I think it is obvious that some agents are trying to defame him, with false interpretations especially regarding his views on homosexuality and transsexualism, sometimes using dubious sources or no source at all. I think the article needs a substantial revision and new additions to the article should be reviewed regularly, since it will inevitably include information on some delicate matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.233.4.121 (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Going to need specifics of what you believe is unsourced or poorly sourced. A quick glance shows much of his views are quoted verbatim. Slywriter (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand that I should not quote material from the article, and I am not familiar with linking to "diffs" so perhaps I can give two examples instead. The third sentence in the introduction is an example of the kind of defamatory information I was referring to in my original post, and it lacks a reference. As another example, in the last sentence of the introduction, the first of the two claims uses a reference that 1) Seems to have inserted the word "homosexuality" in Dr. McHughs statement, and 2) Perhaps more importantly, the reference in turn refers to an original interview on another website but this interview seems to have been removed, or at least I cannot find it. For these reasons I would consider the reference to be unreliable. 81.233.4.121 (talk) 19:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added specificity to who criticized but as to the rest of your concerns, the issues discussed in the introduction are clearly sourced in the body of the article and there is nothing to indiciate the sources have taken his words out of context. If you have sources that dispute the account of the sources currently in the article, please provide them. Beyond that, there appears little that can be done. Slywriter (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You can get the diffs by clicking the prev links or comparing selected revisions in the history. For reference, if you post the following, it will render as Wikipedia: RAN1 (talk) 23:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Alex Epstein (American writer)
Subject has complained on twitter that his article was biased and advocated for people to "fix it" https://twitter.com/AlexEpstein/status/1585418634129809409, which some infrequently active users have done. I just thought it was worth noting this here to let others assess if the removed content was justly removed or not. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The good news is that it looks like some users are already on this. The bad news is that some of these users are responding to the situation in a less-than-ideal fashion on the talk page. I had to template one user that was using edit summaries inappropriately, but I wonder if administrator involvement might be necessary to avoid an edit war on the article and a flame war on the talk page. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Sacheen Littlefeather
Could use some assistance at this one - very recently dead person being accused by a notable activist that they are faking their ancestry:

Sources:
 * An OpEd which I believe is reliable for the notable viewpoints of Jacqueline Keeler -
 * A questionably reliable source impugning Ms. Keeler -
 * Lots of NOT RELIABLE tweets impugning the methology of the article (alleging Keeler convinced her source of a thing, then used the source to state the thing as if the source came up with it) - et. al.
 * A person who may very well be Keeler editing the article in question in the distant past - ref

Problems:
 * won't stop impunging the subject on the talk page ("FRAUDULENT CLAIMANT", "Pretendian fraudster")
 * may have stopped linking not-reliable Twitter, but I'm not sure.

Help from other people wouild be appreciated. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments

 * The "questionably reliable source" is not reliable. It's an opinion piece on a networking site, powows.com and should be removed. When it first went up, it was a message board post, and several of us removed it. Then it was moved to a new url on the site to look like an article. It's the same post/opinion piece. As an active member of the Indigenous Wikiproject, we deal with issues of verifying Native American and Indigenous Canadian identity regularly. Native claims have to be confirmed by the tribe/nation the person claims. If they're not claimed back, they're not Native. It doesn't matter how many fans they have. Even the New York Times gets this wrong a lot of the time, fwiw, believing self-id and not doing due diligence. From what I've seen, the bio subject never gave any evidence. Simple phone calls to enrollment have confirmed she's not who she claimed to be. And now her family has come forward to confirm, but people are insulting her family. It's taking a while for the reliable news outlets to catch up, and, like usual, many are unclear on how to parse and write about Native identity issues. Even the more reliable ones are making mistakes. Most Native editors have been staying out of it until things calm down. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am concerned by the rules promulgated by WP:NDNID, and further concerned by some of your statements. First, if "even the New York Times gets this wrong a lot of the time, fwiw, believing self-id and not doing due diligence," then your rule clearly violates WP:V. Secondly, "Simple phone calls to enrollment have confirmed she's not who she claimed to be," is a clear violation of WP:NOR. Hipocrite (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite... Again, these are talk pages and I'm asking you to AGF. I'm not telling Wikipedians to take it upon themselves to call enrollment then write about their OR. I'm sorry if this was unclear. I assumed people would understand this is just a discussion. I'm talking about how these things are done in our communities off-wiki. I'm talking about the issues a community of editors here on WP deal with when there is information we have that the sources "of record" like the NYT continually get wrong due to issues of inherent bias and chronic lack of fact-checking. It's a problem. Non-Native sources are often not RS on Native topics. Just like someone with a phd in Marine Biology is probably not an authoritative source on Russian History. That's why the Wikiproject has had to figure out what to do when we have had situations where, for instance, authoritative sources - the Nations themselves - have had to issue statements when sources like the NYT have issued false statements. FWIW, most Nations have so many false claimants they don't usually bother unless it's a very high profile fraud... but not so high profile that the backlash isn't worth it. - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 01:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Note - This bio subject is no longer living; why is at BLP? - CorbieVreccan  ☊ ☼ 00:31, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Recently deceased are also covered.Slywriter (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw this story come up in the news and knew BLP was coming. As Slywriter says, someone dead only a month is still likely covered by BLP, and this is a strong case of why. We have an accusation made, perhaps true, but which undercuts most of her life's worth while it is still being evaluated by expert sources. It would be inappropriate to ignore the source (the SFChron with the sister's comments) but until more can be found from reliable sources, this should be considered only an allegation until the sister's comments can be corroborated. --M asem (t) 00:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "someone dead only a month is still likely covered by BLP" It's not "likely", it's actual policy ... see WP:BRDP. Usually they get at least six months, more if the community feels it's relevant, up to six years (I think). Daniel Case (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more or less in agreement with Masem. As I pointed out to the block evader a few months ago we can't do OR, so their attempts to search tribal records etc were and are irrelevant, not something we would ever cover especially in a BLP (which was unquestionable then). It seems we have a source now and IMO it's enough we can include something but it will have to be limited. It may be that things will change over the next few weeks and more sources will emerge and we will cover more, perhaps even there will be little doubt in new sources and this will be reflected in our article. There's nothing wrong with that, this is how Wikipedia works. And while I have sympathy to those who feel the information is already out there and are unhappy with what they are regard as false information continuing to be presented in our articles in the meantime, this is how it has to work. Wikipedia always reflects/follows reliable secondary sources, it does not lead them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Masem and Nil Einne's comments, would the following be appropriate for inclusion to address the issue in the article?


 * "According to Native American writer and activist Jacqueline Keeler who interviewed Littlefeather's sisters shortly after her death, her sisters alleged that Littlefeather's claim of Native American ancestry was fabricated and that their father was actually of Mexican Hispanic descent."


 * This makes it clear where the allegation is coming from as an attributed statement cited to the interviews, as opposed to a factual assertion in Wikivoice that the subject was not a Native American. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Keeler's name is relevant at this time (that might change if it turns out she made this up).
 * Shortly after her death, Littlefeather's biological sisters alleged in a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, that Littlefeather's claim of Native American ancestry was fabricated and that their father was actually of Mexican Hispanic descent.
 * This is a clearer summary of what is reliable sourced so far. Nemov (talk) 00:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The SF Chronicle article is only a single stated opinion of its author. It is published in the news outlet's "Open Forum", which the org describes (on the article itself) as: "Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership." Without any check on the veracity of the opinion article, I don't see how it can be relied upon for anything other than, narrowly, assertions made by its author. There isn't even verification of the sisters' quotes by anyone other than the author, and the other primary sources brought up here - namely the tweets showing that one sister relied on the article's author for the original claim against identity - make it clear the opinion piece published in SF Chronicle has no business being considered reliable for anything other than Keeler's assertions. --Pinchme123 (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's too much WP:OR there for editors to consider at this time. Yes, this is an op-ed and that should be mentioned, however this is reliably sourced. Until there's something else from a WP:RS that debunks the sister's allegations it belongs in the article. Nemov (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is only a reliable source for Keeler's opinion per WP:RSEDITORIAL and should be attributed as such, if used. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * As Littlefeather still falls under BLP as a recently deceased person, then we need to be careful how it's worded. The massive controversy over Keeler's claims regarding Ben Nighthorse Campbell's ancestry indicate that she may not, on her own, be reliable enough to pass BLP-muster. Additionally, "a simple phone-call to enrollment" is textbook original research, and even were it not, could only be used to demonstrate (lack of) enrollment in a recognised indigenous nation. I completely understand that appropriation of indigenous identity is an incredibly controversial topic but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, WP:NDNID is only advisory without wider community acceptance, and I would suggest that, going forward, the Indigenous Wikiproject try to obtain that community acceptance. Sceptre (talk) 00:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Update 1
I would appreciate further input with respect to an additional pair of sources - and, which not yet in the article, but which I believe provided needed balancing to the Keeler opinion piece. Pinging all contibutors not engaged on the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I recommending exercising some patience. This is a new story and it could change dramatically with new information. Consensus can take time. The current TALK page seems to be doing a good job so far. Nemov (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are you opposed to uninvolved experienced editors helping, exactly? I disagree - the current article is a BLP and NPOV violation. Hipocrite (talk) 01:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I offered you advice. You are free to ignore it. Nemov (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * A few comments from the Variety as an early counterbalance seems fine. (The AV Club is citing the Variety piece itself). --M asem (t) 01:32, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The weight should be on the variety piece since it is a secondary source to the controversy (which is the op-ed itself). Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * With regard to AV Club, it does bring an avenue to those who want to introduce the tweets of unverified people, because it is now possible to write: «AVClub reported that social media accounts disputed Keeler's research». What doesn't belong in the Littlefeather article is any sort of discussion regarding Keeler's bonafides: those should be included on Keeler's page, if those meet WP:BLP.  But Littlefeather's entry is about Littlefeather, not about Keeler.XavierItzm (talk) 22:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Just coming here to present a new small wrinkle, on which consensus seems to be against me, but I am curious to hear others' opinions as I have never quite run across this. Editors added this piece by Roger Ebert, which says that Littlefeather was "not an Indian." So far, so good. For me, Ebert is a reliable source, and that should be usable...but for the fact that he refers to a "clarification" and copies, apparently verbatim, a letter from a lawyer that says exactly the opposite. Now, I don't think it is hard to understand what happened here, or to surmise Ebert's actual thoughts on the matter, but that said, the source says what it says. At first, the clarification was not used at all, which struck me as absolutely not appropriate. The clarification was then added, which seems more appropriate to me--but, ideally, I would not use it at all, as it essentially says "A" and "not A" at the same time. As I say, I reverted once, and things have since moved on, so I don't think it is exactly a live issue, but I was curious about the somewhat odd situation. Cheers, and thanks in advance for indulging me. Dumuzid (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think Robert Ebert is a RS. He's a movie critic but not a news reporter, and his columns for the Chicago Sun Times are technically opinion columns. This is also from his website which makes it self-published under WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:10, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ebert is cited several thousands of times by Wikipedia.   Ebert was an industry expert, including a deep and broad knowledge of its players.  Ebert's entry on Wikipedia reads: film historian, journalist, screenwriter, and author.  Anybody disputing Ebert's chops as journalist and film industry expert historian is welcome to edit Ebert's article, but I would recommend bringing WP:RS that the man was not a historian nor a journalist.   The article being discussed here is published at the official Chicago Sun-Times web address and it is a factual Brando biopic, not a movie review.  Finally, anyone disputing Ebert's reliability can head here.  XavierItzm (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence that the Sun Times retained editorial control over Ebert's website rather than acting as a domain host at the time. In fact, there was a disclaimer on his page  "The information and features included in this Web Site have been compiled from a variety of sources, are for informational and entertainment purposes only... This Web Site and all information it contains are provided "AS IS." By accessing or linking to this Web Site, you assume the risk that the information on this Web Site may be incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, or may not meet your needs and requirements." Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. Did you know The New York Times' Terms of Service reads «TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAWS, THE SERVICES AND ALL SOFTWARE ARE DISTRIBUTED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND»?  [All caps theirs, not mine).  You are going to require thicker stuff than this to dispute Roger Ebert's credibility.  Second, when is a biopic of Marlon Brando by a historian not informational and for entertainment purposes?  Third, did you notice that at the end of the lawyerly page you cited it says: «Contact Us For questions or comments regarding these Terms and/or the Web Site please contact jwcary@suntimes.com.»  Where did you get that the [[Chicago Sun-Times]] is not responsible for the material published at its own website? XavierItzm (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I tend to agree with your underlying position here, there is a big difference between the disclaimer on the Ebert website--applying quite explicitly to the information on the page, and the Times disclaimer, applying to the software and "services." In other words, Ebert is saying "I can't necessarily vouch for all of this," while the Times is saying "if this website crashes your computer, you can't sue us."  I don't particularly mind citing Ebert as an expert, though this particular usage is subject to my earlier objections--though I also note that those objections have been pretty effectively mooted by a recent CBS News article.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we agree on the basics. BTW, it is a misreading of the text to think that the NYT's ToS are for software. The linked NYT Terms (see above) state: «the Services (including, but not limited to text, photographs, images, illustrations, designs, audio clips, video clips, “look and feel,” metadata, data, or compilations, all also known as the "Content")».  The Services most certainly include the newspaper's content, which they distribute "as is" with zero warranties.  Look, this is a very unproductive way to try and claim Roger Ebert is an unreliable film historian, journalist, screenwriter, and author, though I understand it is mostly not you. Cheers, XavierItzm (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, such disclaimers are not useful for assessing the reliability of a source, see also the examples at Non-Wikipedia disclaimers. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing Ebert's credibility as an expert on films. I am saying that HIS website, rogerebert.com is not subject to editorial oversight by the Chicago Sun-Times. Where do you get the idea that every portion of the "Digital Chicago" domain is reliable and subject to the same "rigorous standards of fact-checking and accuracy" as the Sun-Times news stories per WP:NEWSORG? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The reliability of sources is not black and white. Roger Ebert writes opinion columns, as all movie critics do, and thus is a great source for an opinion about a movie, but would be a poor source on, say... thermodynamics. One only has to read the source to be able to tell it's an opinion column, because it's chalk full of his opinions. All newspapers have their op/ed columns which are not reliable for anything other than the author's opinion, even if they are reliable sources for their news articles. Op/ed columns are not subject to the same editorial scrutiny as a real news article (often none at all). In addition, Ebert apparently ran what amounts to a retraction at the bottom by printing the subject's lawyer's request, so the facts are questionable at best. Zaereth (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The above debate about rogerebert.suntimes.com seems moot at this point, since another RS (CBS News) has covered this now and is cited in the current version of the article. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German
Asking for additional eyes on this article. A suspect was recently arrested and named in the article, including in the lead. I removed the content from the lead and their name for now but I also removed a swath of content from the Persons of interest section regarding other suspects who were named in the article. A couple named individuals were never even deemed suspects. S0091 (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed the new suspect's name again just now and linked to WP:BLPCRIME in my edit summary, but if this stays in the news I imagine it will need further attention... Caeciliusinhorto (talk)

Peter Galbraith
has a reputation as a remarkably extreme pro-Iraqi Ba'th Party partisan editor, making edits/statements to the effect that only 100 people died in the Halabja massacre and the attack was inflated by a factor of 50 (which is not consistent with declassified Iraqi military intelligence documents), that the Anfal campaign was "made up" by Kanan Makiya (though his own source directly contradicted him), that United States support for Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War was only $250 million rather than the billions reported in mainstream sources, that the Iraqi invasion of Iran was an act of self-defense caused by Iranian "interference in Iraq," and citing official statements by Saddam Hussein and the Democratic Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of Arabistan  to refute reliable sources. (When I called him out on this, he reported me to WP:ANI, where he narrowly escaped a BOOMERANG, and WP:AN3, which ended in a BOOMERANG.)

Now, Saucysalsa30 has turned his attention to an article where this sort of behavior is particularly unwelcome: Peter Galbraith, where both WP:BLP and WP:AP2 considerations directly apply. At Talk:Peter Galbraith, Saucysalsa30 described Galbraith (without sources) as "a politically-motivated and controversial politician making a claim and attempting legislative action on something that wasn't true to push his long-running political agenda that he would eventually and profoundly benefit from financially," which may constitute a BLP violation (although we tend to give editors more slack on talk pages). On the article itself, Saucysalsa30 made contested edits and has reverted three times in less than 24 hours to reinstate them without consensus. The thrust of these edits is that during his tenure on the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Galbraith singlehandedly concocted ("his claim of") additional Iraqi chemical attacks on Kurdish civilians shortly following the end of the Iran–Iraq War, but "Despite Galbraith's claim, physicians from the United Nations, International Red Cross, and Turkey did not find any evidence of chemically inflicted wounds."

I did not revert Saucysalsa30's edits regarding the lack of "evidence of chemically inflicted wounds." However, I noticed that Galbraith's 2008 book The End Of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End (which was already cited in the relevant section of the article) directly responded to this criticism, and decided it would be appropriate (and consistent with our BLP policy) to include the subject's response to the potentially serious implications of Saucysalsa30's proposed additions. In the book, referring to the work done by a team led by Chris Van Hollen and himself, Galbraith writes: Our team talked to hundreds of survivors. Chris and I were struck by two things: the passivity with which most described these horrific events and, second, the absence of physical trauma. Except for a few refugees with burn marks, no one seemed physically hurt. We later realized that the absence of other injury was in itself a "negative proof" that chemical weapons had been used. If the Iraqi offensive had been a conventional one, there would have been fighting among the peshmerga and the army. We would have expected to see survivors with gunshot and shrapnel wounds. No one had these injuries. It was, as Chris observed, like Sherlock Holmes's dog that didn't bark. ... [Our report] concluded: "To dismiss the eyewitness accounts, however, would require one to believe that 65,000 Kurdish refugees confined to five disparate locations were able to organize a conspiracy to defame Iraq and these refugees were able to keep their conspiracy secret."

Again, when I introduced a short excerpt from the subject's own book directly responding to the accusation that the chemical attacks may have been fabricated—while retaining almost all of Saucysalsa30's text—Saucysalsa30 reverted to reinstate his preferred version three separate times, leaving edit summaries that falsely labelled my edits as "vandalism" or "self-admitted disruptive editing" (which is not consistent with the widely-accepted definition of vandalism used by Wikipedia editors). Saucysalsa30 has evidently decided that I am a "vandal" or "enemy" who must be reverted at all costs without any attempt at discussion, consensus-seeking, or compromise, and that he effectively now WP:OWNs a sensitive AP2 article about a living person—whom he can freely disparage and accuse of fraud while omitting the subject's response.

To me, the only question is whether this serious, almost WP:NOTHERE-level misconduct belongs in this forum, at WP:AN3, or at WP:AE.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's good. I found the book quote and added it to the citation. Just so you both are aware, there are discretionary sanctions on the topic of the Kurds. I've given you both the relevant alerts ([1][2]). RAN1 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above text is full of misrepresentations and false accusations irrelevant to the matter, and this defamation has already been addressed time and time again whenever he harasses me. He has a history of hounding and attacking me on articles I have activity. In this case, he followed me to Peter Galbraith, where I was very recently active, his first activity on this page entirely was a partial revert with an edit summary of false accusations/attacks. This is an editor that has received a formal warning from an admin for harassing and attacking me.
 * No use in wasting time addressing defamatory drivel above that I've already addressed in other places, so I'll keep this brief. This comment was a response to first Talk page comment on the Anfal campaign page[], where he made a comment, called out by other editors too as disruptive and harassment, with the same false accusations as above. He did this for no other reason than constructive discussion between myself and other editors, and editors making edits not to his liking.. I had other diffs refuting other of his attacks and demonstrating his continuous disruptive editing.
 * Interestingly in pointing that out, you admit to a history of hounding. The continued WP:HOUNDING is already a conduct violation warranting action.
 * Let's take a look at some of TheTimesAreAChanging's deliberately false accusations and disruptive editing in their edit summaries:
 * "to the potentially serious WP:BLP/WP:SYNTH claims—such as the implication that Galbraith is a liar with a financial conflict of interest—introduced by User:Saucysalsa30"
 * First, he accuses me of adding something that's been on the article since 2009. I added nothing about his conflict of interests to the article, and such information has been discussed in this Talk page multiple times and has been on the article since at least 2009. After all, I removed proven BLP/SYNTH violations from this article as pointed out in the article's Talk section.
 * TheTimesAreAChanging, considering his financial gains and controversies have been discussed and well-established for over a decade, why do I need to source what's already sourced? This has already been talked about in a couple other Talk sections too and has been in the article and sourced since the 2000s.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Galbraith#Galbraith_Financial_Benefit_from_his_Support_of_Iraqi_Kurdistan
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peter_Galbraith#Dagens_N%C3%A6ringsliv_is_a_tabloid
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Galbraith#Oil_controversy
 * Considering that topic was exactly the target of disruptive editing by Devotedamerican, it's strange you're defending it.
 * "Dropped unnecessary and inaccurate WP:WEASEL language about "his claim""
 * This is an unsourced claim on your part that it is "inaccurate". He drafted a bill precisely on this claim. Why are you engaging in WP:OR?
 * "RV unexplained content removal."
 * Another false claim. This point is made and sourced in this Talk section, with a good source, not a bibliographical note that somehow manages to make multiple errors in a couple sentences. In fact, these were more or less little more than administrative/state records. Linking the source again.
 * "You may object to the term "secret police" but, for the record, the description of Ba'thist Iraq as a dictatorship with secret police is a widespread view in mainstream reliable sources; if anything, the opposite view that Ba'thist Iraq was a benevolent democracy with normal police would be WP:FRINGE"
 * No one said otherwise... the point is that sources, especially those focused on it, and like linked above, denote them as state records/government records/regime records and so on. They aren't specifically police records. This does bring up a good point: it shouldn't be labeled as "police" in the first place necessarily.
 * I could go on and on, but the verifiable hounding which is a direct violation of the site's conduct policies, and the false accusations to justify poor editing and introducing BLP vios is exhibited well enough.
 * TheTimesAreAChanging made these edits without justification other than false accusations/personal attacks. No Talk page explanation. He also broke 3RR, first with a partial revert and adding in other info followed by a full revert., followed by completely wiping out my changes arbitrarily. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 01:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I can be bothered looking into this dispute but just a reminder to all that something being in a long time doesn't mean it's not a BLP violation. Also if someone removes a BLP violation, and you add it back, you are responsible for a BLP violation. And especially if you were warned e.g. in an edit summary that the content violated BLP, you could be sanctioned for it no matter how long it's been there or who originally added it. Note that since I have not looked into the details I am not saying anything is or isn't a BLP violation. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Mike Gordon (Phish)
It seems the community consensus has always been that his arrest should be discussed on this page and for years the same people have tried to cover this up. Isn't there a way to lock this so that Phish's people can't keep removing the info? Nobody believes that the Hells Angels caught him with a young girl, beat him up, and in the end it was all just a misunderstanding everybody knows that is nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjbrunson (talk • contribs) 06:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , why the heck should this incident from 19 years ago be mentioned? The charges were dropped promptly. There was no indictment, no trial and no conviction. What are you trying to accomplish? It doesn't seem to align with WP:BLP policy. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is up to consensus; use the article talk page to discuss with others if the information is relevant. Gordon is a public figure, and while it is not forbidden to include dismissed allegations, the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.  -- Jayron 32 15:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find any evidence that this has been discussed either on this page or Talk:Mike Gordon since 2012, and it's not at all clear that in 2012 there was any consensus for including it. If you think the community consensus would be to include it, write up some proposed text and open up a discussion on the talk page.  The argument against including it is pretty well summed up by  – you will need to convince editors that this is a sufficiently important part of Gordon's biography that it is proportionate and BLP-compliant to include a 19-year-old accusation which never even went to trial and was apparently withdrawn by the accuser as a misunderstanding. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Bob Graham
Bob's daughter, Gwen Graham, "is currently assistant secretary of education for legislation and congressional affairs in the Biden administration." The quote is from Wikipedia's page Gwen Graham

I added the above quote to Bob Graham's page at the end of the first paragraph under "Personal". The insert followed text stating that Gwen had been a member of the U.S. House (stated without source).

The point is to update the reader, because it is improper to leave the subject without noting that Gwen has another prominent role in government.

Long story short, my truthful revision was deleted within hours. Either update the text referencing Gwen's position or delete mentioning Gwen's former role altogether. ````

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry11565 (talk • contribs) 10:34, October 31, 2022 (UTC)


 * You made a good faith edit and it was undone. Then, you came here? This is premature. You should discuss this with the editor who undid your edit before escalating this. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Muboshgu. This is not a situation for the BLP Noticeboard; this can be handled sufficiently at the article's talk page. (IMO, the question is, which is the "higher" position: US representative or assistant secretary in a Cabinet department? And that's a question for article talk, not a noticeboard.) —C.Fred (talk) 17:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Frank Dikötter


Frank Dikötter is a very significant and widely respected historian of Modern China, whose historical works are based on extensive and careful archival research. This "biography" is quite clearly not an objective appraisal of his work but rather an attempted "take down" to the extent that it reads like a "The Case Against...". The bulk of comments on his work are very negative and balanced by very little positive appraisal: whether they count as libellous or not I am not qualified to say, but they are clearly highly prejudicial, and come across as having been written by an apologist for the Chinese Communist Party, of whose policies and legacy Dikötter has been very critical. I would suggest that this entry does not conform to the standards of Wikipedia entries and should be significantly revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laomaa63 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * My one observation here is that no other academic analyses, reviews, or the like have been presented in the talk page besides what is already in the article. That leaves the reader with the conclusion that what is in the article is what academics say. I would suggest that find some other sources to balance the coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My expertise is in the linguistics of Modern China, not its history, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to find these sources myself. My question would be: how did such an unbalanced account come to be put up in the first place? Aren't balance and objectivity values of Wikipedia? My point is this entry not only makes Dikötter look bad, it makes Wikipedia look bad.I would suggest this entry be removed until the appropriate changes can be made Laomaa63 (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether or not something is biased is extremely difficult to tell unless one is an expert on the topic. For instance, Alex Jones is a really negative article, but it is not biased, as it accurately reflects mainstream coverage of Alex Jones, which is overwhelmingly negative. Obviously Frank Dikötter isn't anything like Alex Jones, but if someone's work is polarising it's easy for someone to cite the negative reviews while ignoring the positive ones. I of course have no idea whether the reviews currently in the article reflect the overall reception of Frank Dikötter's work. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Me neither. I am concerned about the eventualism approach is correct per WP:BLPBALANCE. For example, his series The People's Trilogy has won critical awards which suggests he has had positive critical feedback yet his article devotes a much heavier paragraph to its criticism. It's probably wise to notify some experts to weigh in, perhaps from WikiProject Chinese history. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The wikiproject is notified although there does not seem to be much activity. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Laomaa63, these sources may help you ] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * and, who have actively edited the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , are you asking a specific question? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

do you have a response to Laomaa63's assertion that the article is biased? Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not really, sorry. I haven't taken the time to analyze it for bias, I merely proofread it. If nobody else weighs in, I'll take a second look. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 01:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Hemiauchenia The article Mao's Great Famine describes reactions about one of his trilogy. There is much more detailed description than the article Frank Dikötter. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I added Roderick MacFarquhar's reaction to Mao's Great Famine into the article. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Adonis Georgiadis
The very first sentence of describing this person in the English version of his page is that he is a far-right politician. This comes in stark contrast with all his interviews and career, where he publicly self-identifies as "right-wing" and explicitly denies a "far-right" identity that is repeatedly brought as an accusation by his political opponents. The citations are opinionated articles that fail to portray a complete image. In the Greek version of his page, he is correctly described as "leaning to right". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.157.43.110 (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm on mobile so cannot check this out but note that someone's self denials or self description maybe should be mentioned but are generally irrelevant as to how we describe someone as people often deny stuff that is widely accepted. Nil Einne (talk) 23:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians have collectively decided in their collective wisdom that it's totally cool to shoehorn labels into the first sentence, as long as they can find 5 to 24 references using the label, and as long as the subject is on the political right. Deal with it. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The whole article needs a rewrite really. I did remove the primary/synth spam from the lead though. RAN1 (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Jenny Shipley
Hello - this page is severely whitewashed and is inaccurate; 1) She was an un-elected Prime Minister and this word is missing form her description as "New Zealand's first woman Prime Minister" - it denigrates her successor Helen Clark who was elected via a plebiscite. Shipley's description should thus read "New Zealand's first un-elected woman Prime Minister" because such distinctions matter in a democracy. She took power via an internal party coup. When she actually stood for election the electorate did not vote for her and she lost office. Her team of sympathisers or employees are attempting to mis-represent her position in history and I believe that is wrong. I'm particularly aggrieved here because I made this correction myself after being invited by Wiki to be an Editor and someone erased my edit and complained about me as being vexacious and was banned. I was so disappointed that Wiki allowed tyranny to political triumph that I gave up trying or supporting you, but a recent email from James Wales requesting funding meant I had to re-engage.

FACT: She was foisted on New Zealand by a cabal within her party and then rejected by voters and thrown out of office at the very next election.

Am I wrong? Can her page be amended? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.135.62 (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * New Zealanders don't directly elect their prime ministers, so there's nothing to be done here. RAN1 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead already clearly states that Shipley was chosen as prime minister after Bolger lost the party's confidence and was unopposed, and that her party lost the 1999 general election; the subsection on her premiership goes into more detail. The article is perfectly correct and doesn't misrepresent the situation at all. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

David Sanders (biologist)
There is a calculated, unfair attempt to insert biased messaging into the Wikipedia page of political candidate David Sanders just days before an election. Since October 28th, several Wikipedia users have inserted language that closely mirrors messaging being used against Mr. Sanders in a mail advertisement funded by the Indiana Republican State Committee. These edits are obviously being planned by Mr. Sanders' opponents, and it is wrong for Wikipedia to be used as a platform to spread political advertising messaging.

Not only do these edits have a political purpose, but they are irrelevant, constitute vandalism, or violate Wikipedia's neutrality standard that forbids editorial bias. I respectfully ask that the update I made to this page on November 3rd be re-instated. I made that update to make this page less biased, but unfortunately that update was undone.

Thank you for your consideration. Here is the messaging used in the mailer advertisement against Mr. Sanders that is closely mirrored in this Wikipedia page: - "Supports weak borders and tried to turn West Lafayette into a sanctuary city." - "Tried to stop a job-creator from coming to Indiana because of its ties to our military." - "Took a knee at a city council meeting on a night a police officer was honored" - "Opposes Purdue's tuition freeze" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pattdavid (talk • contribs) 05:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

BLP Userboxes
How strictly is BLP policy applied to userspace? There are many userboxes that mention living persons in a non-neutral fashion, and some (such as this and this) are inflammatory toward living persons. Should userboxes such as these be nominated to MfD whenever they're found? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Whether or not BLP applies to userboxes, those are both innappropriate per WP:UBCR: Userboxes must not be inflammatory or substantially divisive. and Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for: Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind (commercial, political, religious, or otherwise); Opinion pieces, particularly on current affairs or politics I wish we cracked down more on these divisive userboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've nominated those two and User:Avazina/SOB for deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I saw that, but I assumed it went unenforced given the thousands of userboxes that promote or criticize political beliefs in some way. I fear that having political userboxes at all reinforces advocacy in editing, but I figured that the BLP issues were more clear cut. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's now at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Avazina/BIG MISTAKE. Please contribute there with regard to that specific item. DMacks (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Karen Countryman-Roswurm
This article has statements of fact from sources published by the subject of the article. The article was created by the subject. Parts of the article are repeatedly removed including additions of a factual court filling involving the subject, sourced from a legal article. Sources used are from self published sources, and involve fringe opinions of mental health. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8803:7B07:2100:DC86:FD43:8AB:7BF1 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please discuss the changes you want to make on the article's talk page. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please note that some of your sources are actual court documents, which are not permitted per WP:BLPPRIMARY. If you wish to include this info then you'll need to find it in reliable WP:Secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth in Nancy Allen (actress)
Nancy Allen's date of birth is given as June 24, 1950, in the lead, infobox, and "1950–1972: Early life" section, with the latter having a citation to the Library of Congress. Unfortunately, the LoC page shows that June 24, 1950, comes from IMDb.

The LoC page also gives January 6, 1950, as a birth date, with "Int'l. mo. pic. alm" as its source. I assume that the abbreviation stands for International Motion Picture Almanac, but I don't know that for sure.

Should "June 24, 1950" be replaced by "January 6, 1950" in the article? If so, how should that date be cited? I would think that the citation should be to the original source rather than the LoC, but all we have about that is the year and an abbreviation of the source's name. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Birthdates in general are trivia. By that, I mean it's just statistical data not much different from height, weight, or eye color. It's handy information to have, when we can get it, but in most cases an article will read just the same without it. Unless it's necessary for disambiguation purposes, we generally err on the side of caution. Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, many people regard their birthdates as private, so we usually need to see it published in not just one or two, but multiple reliable sources so that we can reasonably infer that the subject will not object to us publishing it too. (The implication being that if they do not want it published they would have asked for the info to be redacted, which any good RS will usually do.) If there is any doubt, just use the birth year instead and leave it at that. Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Maté
I've semi'd this WP:GS/SCW-covered article after an influx of disruptive edits canvassed on Twitter, but just as we don't overlook legal threats, we shouldn't overlook Twitter calls-to-arms (WP:DOOFUS, Don't Overlook Overeager Fans Using SPAs?), so I would appreciate some extra eyes here. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 22:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that the label conspiracy theorist in the first sentence of the lead was undue, but I'm not really seeing all that much substantially wrong with the article besides that. There are some minor phrasings that could be improved, but I don't think that there are substantial BLP issues in the article at this moment. —  Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe there are numerous issues with the article. The "conspiracy theorist" descriptive in the first sentence is extremely problematic as the source cited mentions the topic in passing in a 30 word sentence, but has a 169 word post-publication correction noting that it is disputed. Furthermore, the weasel words stating that the subject is "known for its sympathetic coverage of authoritarian regimes" is not actually noted in the source cited. Lastly, much of the lead of the subject seems to be secondary criticisms of organizations associated with the subject and not about the subject himself. Poyani (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Sheila Jasanoff


Can people keep an eye on this article? A brand new account (who claims to be a new account of the user ) recently added SPS allegations that this individual protected sexual harassers, which I reverted due to WP:BLPSPS. The edit adding this was thanked by the author of the allegations in question on twitter, so there may be more attempts to include the allegations in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Peyton List (actress, born 1986)
This BLP cites a TV Guide profile for DOB, but that link currently redirects to a newer profile page that does not verify DOB. However, the access-date for the original link was back in August 2016. So, I got an archive link from July 2016 (one was not available for August), which does verify DOB.

But we do not know why TV Guide pulled that information. Perhaps they determined it was not correct. Or has TV Guide adopted a policy of not displaying DOB anymore? Are we fine the way it is? Appreciate any guidance. – Archer1234 (talk) 23:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It is quite possible that the subject contacted TV Guide and asked for the DOB to be removed. Many people these days regard their DOBs as private, and any good reliable source will almost always honor such a request (including Wikipedia). Lacking any explanation from the subject or TV Guide, I would work under that assumption. See: WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BIRTHDATE. If TV Guide was the only source for this information, Then I would also work under that assumption. We generally require multiple RSs for DOBs to indicate that the subject would not mind if we publish it too. Lacking that, or if any doubt is present, then we should just list the year or omit it altogether. Zaereth (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

misattribution Ayu Saraswati
It has recently come to my attention that biographical information about one Indonesian author/scholar is being misattributed to a different Indonesian public figure with a similar name. I am related to the person being misattributed and wish to make this correction and at very least remove the falsely attributed work and honors. The two figures are entirely different people and this information is easily verifiable by several sources including university websites, book pages, and the official personal website of the scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.173.206 (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It would help if you were more specific, so we could verify the sources and move or remove the information, as appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, all the writings formerly [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ayu_Saraswati&type=revision&diff=1119871313&oldid=1119326979] attributed to the subject are by someone else who is currently an academic at the University of Hawai`i, Manoa [//drsaraswati.com/contact-me/] [//nyupress.org/author/l-ayu-saraswati/]. The author of those seems to generally go by the name L. Ayu Saraswati (nowadays?). All of them seem to be in the same field, and the earliest and award winning one was published when the subject was ~16 which while not impossible, is fairly rare especially for an academic work of the sort it seems to be. Note that there are 3 sources I removed which seem to be about the subject. One of them didn't seem to mention the writings that I noticed. The other ones were dead. I'm not sure it's worth investigating since even if the sources do claim the subject wrote those I'm fairly sure they've just made the same mistake of confusing someone with a similar name. (And since this is a BLP issue affecting 2 different people, we should generally not be repeating stuff we're confident is wrong just because it's in an RS.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW, I simply removed the information. I don't think we have an article on the academic and I'm not sure if she passes WP:NPROF or WP:AUTHOR, she won one award but I'm not sure the Gloria E. Anzaldúa prize is significant enough. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction of the information! The academic (L. Ayu Saraswati) merely wanted removal of her work misattributed to the public figure (Putu Ayu Saraswati). 130.132.173.206 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert W. Malone
The introduction to the subject item (below|) is as bad a misrepresentation as many of those made by the subject Dr Robert Malone ... e.g to the effect didn't know others were doing mRNA research with vaccines in mind prior to his claimed achievements (said in an interview with "Dr Phillip McMillan" another con-artist, who appears to be piggy-backing his life off of McMillan Cancer Support.

"... Robert Wallace Malone (born 1959) is an American physician and biochemist. His early work focused on mRNA technology,[3] pharmaceuticals, and drug re-purposing research. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Malone has promoted misinformation about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.[1][4][5][6][7] ..."

Why is a so called encyclopedic work persisting to spread disinformation about (the) COVID-19 event (event being the operative word)?

Please bring the subject article up to scratch - where facts are concerned, else permit those who are able so to do, to do so.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.201.224.162 (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2022 (UTC)


 * As long as there are editors like you will try to add misinformation to our articles, we will keep them protected as necessary to prevent such things Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Durek Verrett
Aside from the previous notability of this person and his involvement with a European royal family member, they have recently hit the news cycle hard now that she is walking away from her royal role. This is what drew me to Verrett's page and it sure to draw others, too. https://www.thedailybeast.com/norwegian-princess-martha-louise-leaves-royal-family-for-durek-verrett-an-american-shaman When I read it, it struck me as an unbroken series of BLP & NPOV violations, with nothing to provide balance between them. If I were to start cleaning them out "immediately" there would be no article left, so I have turned here. I suppose it is more likely to get immediate attention here, rather than merely on the article's talk page. I will add a note on that talk page, too. When I get up in the morning I intend to take a close look at the sources to see what their quality is and what they say about the subject. I am very inexperienced at this. Should I place a tag in the article, or wait for feedback here? I guess I will wait.

Dgndenver (talk) 18:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be discussed on the article's talk page only. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While some of the articles prose may be too negative in my opinion (like the "conman" bit in the lead), calling it an "unbroken series of BLP & NPOV violations" considering the sourcing and what he has actually advocated, I don't think any of it is a serious BLP violation. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The word "conman" (Norwegian: svindler) is in one of the cited articles. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it has too much intricate detail and needless salacious quotes, and can benefit from a rewrite seeking a more restrained tone (Wikipedia is neither a lifestyle magazine nor a newspaper, and should not resemble the type of articles found in such). Aside from Princess Märtha Louise, I don't think it's necessary to name or dwell to much upon details of family members and former lovers, especially if the others are otherwise relatively unknown per WP:NPF. The residence or age at marriage of his wife is pretty trivial, and article comprehension would not be affected by omitting trivial or extraneous facts. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Pavel Fuks
A lot of unreliable information without sources, added by newly created and unregistered users who commit vandalism, as well as their removal of information with sources, including links to official information agencies of Ukraine. Example: User Rolf Linge added false information about Russian nationality in revision 1116409358. (I note that the user registered on Wikipedia and made revisions only on one day - 16 October 2022). This false information has been corrected with arguments. However, a user from IP address 2607:fea8:c3a0:b7a0:4937:d3ed:d8a8:db04 (Canada) in revision 1120158168 returned including the above information. This change was canceled with reasons. Soon, a user from the IP address 45.128.189.62 (Ukraine) in revision 1120380532 returned the above information as well, thus setting up a war of edits without discussion on the Talk page. Other changes were also added, which were made deliberately with the aim of compromising the reliability and authority of the encyclopedia. In violation of the rules, information was removed from the Philanthropy section, which was confirmed by the news agency. In addition, there are many unreliable corrections that concern the business and social activities of a person, in this regard there are even court decisions against fraud and the spread of unreliable information by news websites. So in this case there is a clear violation of a number of rules, including Reliable sources. I quote the paragraph: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." The protection imposed on the page makes it impossible for users without the appropriate status to correct inaccurate information. I draw your attention to the need to take measures against violators of the rules, to maintain a balance regarding the biographies of living people and public figures. So I urge admins to stand guard over the fundamental rules of Wikipedia and, first of all, remove information without sources. -- Ded Prorok (talk) 10:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Stacey Abrams
There's a rather contentious debate going on at Talk:Stacey Abrams and now some edit warring over an issue which I believe falls under WP:BLPREMOVE. Experienced third parties would be helpful here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this issue remotely falls under WP:BLPREMOVE. There's no debate as to the quality of the sources. There's no original research. The sources aren't self-published, and they don't fail verifiability. In fact, I don't think there's a conceivable way that the content in question could be deemed libelous. The content in question is such a basic statement of fact that I'm not sure how it's supposed to be a BLP violation in any way, shape, or form. Toa Nidhiki05 00:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The contention is that what you're seeking to add is an original interpretation or analysis of a source. That's WP:BLPREMOVE #2. Generalrelative (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please identify the original research in question. Toa Nidhiki05 00:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been explained to you numerous times on the article talk page. The purpose of this notice is to bring uninvolved third parties to the discussion there, not to create a separate debate here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just some advice - it would help if you provided some examples for these editors to quickly identify. Specifically, the various proposed and existing text in the article. Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for experienced editors who know how to parse a talk-page thread here. The issue is not that complex and there is no rush. Generalrelative (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm an experienced editor who participated the discussion and I don't understand why you think "a Federal judge ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election is "original interpretation or analysis". I don't believe you have ever explained it. Politrukki (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The statement is one-sided and therefor WP:UNDUE without the context that there were "wins and losses on both sides" as the judge stated, and as was quoted in numerous reliable sources. Here, for example, is how the AJC summarized it: "The judge who decided against Fair Fight on all counts wrote in his ruling that the case wasn’t entirely one-sided." It's been explained many times on the talk page that Toa's rationale for excluding this context (e.g. The judge is being courteous, that the judge's statement is simply inaccurate, or that it doesn't actually matter) is invalid original analysis. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If the ruling was against Fair Fight "on all counts" then it makes sense to me to summarize it as such. There's no BLP issue with taking content from top tier sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the issue. We are indeed taking content from top tier sources. The disagreement is over how to present them accurately. The lawsuit took four years, as the sources note, and over that time many of the issues brought up in the original suit were resolved as the plaintiffs wished. The final bench trial which ruled against Fair Fight was just one part of the story. Presenting it as though it were a ruling which refuted Abrams' claims on the whole would be simply false, per the sources. Generalrelative (talk) 17:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The ruling was against Fair Fight on all counts, . What keeps referring to is a passing remark from the judge in the literal preamble of the opinion, which has no legal binding beyond explaining the basic background of litigation. Saying "wins and losses on both sides" serves no actual purpose except to confuse the reader - it would be like the Texas v. Pennsylvania article saying that "Trump lost the case, but there were wins and losses on both sides throughout litigation". That is technically accurate - a few lower court judges obviously voted to let the case proceed - but SCOTUS (rightfully) slapped the case down, and that's what we report.
 * As for the actual case - as outlined by POLITICO, it was originally extremely broad before gradually being whittled down to three claims. The judge ruled against all three claims. The "wins" Fair Fight did achieve here were entirely outside the courtroom - specifically, the Georgia legislature passed a few laws addressing some specific complaints. This is why several users, including myself, have supported wording that reads something like "A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight on all counts in a lawsuit regarding the election, although some election laws were changed by the legislature while litigation was ongoing". This accurately explains both the outcome of the case (Fair Fight lost on all counts) and the fact that the legislature did make some changes to address other complains Fair Fight had. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it were a passing remark that doesn't matter, then it wouldn't be quoted in multiple reliable sources. Reporting in multiple reliable sources is how we determine notability, not the original analysis of editors, as has been explained to you numerous times. Generalrelative (talk) 17:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not engaging in original research, and I'm going to respectfully ask you to stop claiming I am. I am going off of what reliable sources said, and it's disappointing to see you continue to laser focus on literally one line in the preamble of a case rather than what actual, lengthy reliable sources like POLITICO report. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My response above was for the benefit of others who may be viewing this page. At this point I feel that you are engaging in WP:IDHT behavior which obviates the need to continue to debate with you. Case in point, the fact that here you suggest we focus on a Politico article which happens to be one of the sources I just cited as quoting that "one line" from the judge –– as though it did not say what it quite obviously says. Generalrelative (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In this NYT piece, the "wins and losses for all parties" statement was brought up by Abrams. The NYT writes "U.S. District Court Judge Steven Jones ruled against all the claims brought by Fair Fight Action, which had challenged Georgia’s absentee ballot provisions, oversight of voter rolls and the state’s “exact match” law, which mandates that a voter’s name on their voter application be identical to their government identification, even in the case of hyphens or accent marks." I don't see the importance of mentioning the wins and losses on both sides without spelling out what those wins and losses were, which is probably too much for the lead. I personally don't see a BLPREMOVE issue here as the content itself is well sourced, and carried by enough sources to satisfy WEIGHT. Further discussion on the talk page could hash out the "wins and losses for all parties," but to me that seems like a sub-topic. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Reasonable minds can disagree on WP:BLPREMOVE, which is why the policy recommends bringing such disputes here. Feel free to weigh in on the article talk page if you have concrete suggestions as to how to improve the article. Generalrelative (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you don't understand BLPREMOVE policy. A valid example of BLPREMOVE, even though the edit summary didn't cite BLPREMOVE, would be this, because the source was grossly misrepresented. BLP applies to all spaces, but NOR doesn't extend to article talk pages or noticeboard discussions. Analysing sources in talk page discussion is normal and not original research.What you're now describing is NPOV dispute. At the article talk page users have tried to explain to you that "wins and losses" quote doesn't sufficiently reflect reliable sources. It's verifiable, but not NPOV. Decent NPOV analysis requires taking all relevant sources (or a representative sample if that's not feasible) into account and then find a way to summarise all sources. I suggest you read more sources and go the article talk page to make your case. This forum is not optimal for building consensus in cases where there's no simple "yes" or "no" answer. Politrukki (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The sources are crystal clear that Abrams is not an election denier but rather a promoter of access to voting which is being deliberately suppressed by the GOP. These are two different things. Republicans use the Russian and Chinese propaganda strategy of undermining the legitimate act of democratic elections to make the larger point (from their POV) that democracy no longer works and that the US should transition to autocracy, authoritarianism, and strong leader guidance, in many ways a throwback to monarchism and an undermining of the nature and intent of the Founding Fathers and the Enlightenment in general.  This is not what Abrams is doing, she is doing the opposite—fighting against voter suppression and the undermining of access to the polls.  This makes her a pro-democracy proponent, and is something entirely different than what the GOP is doing, as their tactics and strategies are designed to de-legitimize electoral access, stability, and the peaceful transition of power common to the established democratic tradition.  Attempts by editors to equate the two vastly different approaches should be met with harsh disapproval and possibly even editorial sanctions. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is nonsense. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:46, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You’re welcome to your opinion, but the GOP is now an anti-democracy, pro-autocracy party, and the entire underlying intent of the Big Lie, baseless claims of voter fraud, and voter suppression laws is to thwart the will of the electorate and maintain the hegemony of a minority party. This is established fact based on scholarly sources. It’s not debatable. Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, what are you hoping to achieve with this? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, let's have a discussion based on specific reliable sources and WP policies at the article talk page. Not a broader debate about American politics here. Generalrelative (talk) 00:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm in complete agreement here. This section might need to be hatted to not distract from the actual discussion on RS and Wikipedia policies. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 00:58, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The intent to play the "both sides do it" card here is obvious. That’s propaganda and disinformation. The false balance is obvious, but it also has an implicit whataboutism constructed in its addition to the article.  Only one side is engaging in election denial, and it’s not the Democrats. I hope that clears up your confusion. Viriditas (talk) 01:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not confused about anything other than what you're trying to accomplish here, so there's nothing to clear up. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 02:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It would have been helpful to include sources that back up what you say, as I'm not able to find any supporting your statement. For example, the WaPo a few weeks ago reported that Abrams at various times said the 2018 election was stolen from her, falsely claimed she won, suggested the election was rigged and "not a free or fair election." She claimed voter suppression was the cause for her loss but was not able to prove it, and refused to say Kemp was the "legitimate" governor. The article notes that Abrams "played up claims the election was stolen until such tactics became untenable for anyone who claims to be an advocate for American democratic norms and values." This RS goes directly against most of your comment. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * She did not, however, direct an armed mob to go murder the public officials tasked with certifying the result. So the wording needs to avoid any suggestion of a false equivalence between Abrams' legal complaint, pursued through institutional process, and widespread Republican support for armed insurrection.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The so-called "reliable" source you are using has been the subject of serious criticism about his "fact checks", so it's not as reliable as you might think. Further, you're engaging in egregious, targeted cherry picking to falsely equate Abrams with Trump (and by extension the Big Lie spread by the MAGA contingent that has taken over the GOP) to make a wider false claim by implication, namely that they "both do it", which is again, false.  Abrams by all accounts, probably said some things she should not have said; what high-level politician hasn't?  The difference here, is that Abrams, and by extension the Democrats, are not by and large claiming the election was stolen, they are saying that voter suppression unfairly eliminated potential supporting votes, and the GOP record of doing just this to black voters stretches back 60 years.  I maintain my original position, even slightly stronger than before.  The two claims are vastly different.  On the one hand, we have a Democrat saying there was massive voter suppression.  All of the evidence indicates that this likely occurred, and frankly, we know it is still occurring right now, in the form of new voter restriction laws, organized voter intimidation efforts, and open and ongoing threats to commit violence against political opponents.   This is not the same or equivalent to Republicans who claim there was massive election fraud at the ballot box.  Abrams has never once made this kind of claim.  That Republicans are seizing on her comments to play the "both sides" games says a lot about how this is a public relations effort to blame, distract, deny, and distort any responsibility for their statements. As bad as Kessler's record is, he does serve up a nice, inside-out shit sandwich, placing the actual facts of the matter in between his bad take on Abrams, facts I should note that you did not appear to read since they went beyond the headline and the opening paragraphs that you quoted.  In any event, Kessler is not the arbiter of truth here, as the criticism against him shows; his enlightened centrism is deeply misguided and out of date, and represents everything wrong with institutional, establishment journalism that sucks at the juicy and supple corporate teats of managed democracy that prevents American society from progressing by design. Viriditas (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not accuse me of “egregious, targeted cherry picking to falsely equate” anything, as I’ve obviously done no such thing. I didn’t even mention Trump, so I’m not sure where you get that from. I don’t know how to respond to the rest of this screed, other than to say I’m sorry you feel that way. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like playing the victim, without responding to Viriditas' statement.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Viriditas's statement has nothing of substance to actually respond to, so Mr Ernie is entirely justified to express bewilderment both at the unwarranted personal attack and at the confusing tangent that was laid out before him. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:21, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Abrams is a competent Black woman, an energetic advocate of voting rights, an elite law school graduate, -- and she's one of many who have been vilified by sundry false narratives and equivocations on the Republican/MAGA internet. The disputed article text promotes a false equivalence between her work and the Republican election deniers' narratives. The article wording has been corrected by numerous editors so that it would conform to the statements in the cited sources, but several editors have insisted on loaded language and original research interpretations and extensions of what the sources actually say. This is not a complicated issue.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 01:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you think Donald Trump is relevant to what Stacey Abrams has said and believes about elections, or the lawsuits her campaign and Fair Fight filed. Seems like an attempt to distract from the actual content in question here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 19:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been explained quite a few times now, including directly above. You may disagree. If so, it would be helpful for you to rebut the concern rather than ignoring it.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A central narrative that runs in both parties is a belief in the illegitimacy of either the 2016 or 2020 elections. The Democratic Party even supported the campaigns of various “far-right” candidates in the 2022 primaries so that this issue is front and center in various battleground states. A Washington Post article about the practice: Thriley (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no shared narrative regarding election denial between both parties, nor does your source support that claim. Only the GOP has made a belief in election denial a requirement for the current Republican Party. There is no such corresponding belief or narrative on the side of the Democrats. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say this one more time: let's please have a discussion based on specific reliable sources and WP policies at the article talk page. Not a broader debate about American politics here. Generalrelative (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Should clearly be removed from the lead per WP:WEIGHT. The most critical line of the citation was extracted, without the rest of the context provided, and then repeated up in the lead based just on that source. Welcome to election season on Wikipedia. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 02:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We clearly can't risk portraying Democrats in a bad light. This is Wikipedia! We must maintain a unified narrative that always frames the actions of the left as morally superior to those on the right. Jut think how awful it would be if a Wikipedia article contributed to the wrong candidate losing a race. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This. Is. Not. A. Forum. Generalrelative (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify which edit/content you are referring to? There's a discussion about what the lead should say about possible voter suppression, e.g. "unable to determine whether or not voter suppression affected its result", and another discussion about what should be said about the blow to Abrams's Fair Fight in federal court, i.e. "A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election, while noting "wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation". In the discussion about latter, Generalrelative has supported including "wins and losses" quote, but opposed mentioning that the court ruled against Fair Fight. Politrukki (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This flatly misrepresents my position. In fact I explicitly endorsed Starship.paint's compromise wording which included the result of the bench trial. Generalrelative (talk) 18:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You didn't make this edit and then respond to me that including the part about rejection was "misrepresentation of the source? That specific edit escalated this whole situation. Politrukki (talk) 16:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, you're definitely persisting in misrepresenting me. I made a bold edit to the lead which didn't mention the trial's final ruling but I never opposed reintroducing mention of the ruling with proper context. The issue was that a few editors were trying to reintroduce the final ruling without the necessary context, which was indeed misleading. The statement you appear to be quoting from reads in full: The point that critics of this edit are missing is that over the course of the four years between when Fair Fight filed the lawsuit and when it was finally resolved, the state of Georgia changed its laws to remove the most egregious voting restrictions about which the lawsuit was seeking remedy. These changes are counted by the judge as "wins" for the plaintiff. It's a misrepresentation of the source to present the lawsuit as though it were a failure on the part of Fair Fight. In fact it accomplished a lot, though less than hoped. And when  offered compromise wording which included the result of the trial, I explicitly endorsed that compromise: That's why this nuance needs to be reflected in the text, and I think that Starship.paint's compromise wording does a decent job of it.  Hope that clears things up. Generalrelative (talk) 16:49, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Then I must apologise my misunderstanding. I thought your comment "The contention is that what you're seeking to add is 'an original interpretation or analysis of a source'. That's WP:BLPREMOVE #2." (00:24, 2 November 2022) was about removing "A federal judge ultimately ruled against Fair Fight in a lawsuit regarding the election" part. I didn't assume that you considered the other part, "while noting 'wins and losses for all parties over the course of the litigation', also "original interpretation or analysis of a source". Also before that comment, you cited BLPREMOVE in your edit summary when you removed both parts. Crystal clear? Politrukki (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * At this point I'll refer you to my previous response to you at 17:17, 2 November 2022. There is no need for me to repeat myself. If your intention is not to troll me then you should be able to leave it at that. In either case, I've done all that's required to respond to you here. Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I already responded to your comment and explained that your claim of original interpretation or analysis was baseless because you didn't understand that NOR policy doesn't apply to talk pages. Hope you got it now. Have a nice day, Politrukki (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

There are no BLP issues evident here. Arkon (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC) . "No proof," "Not much empirical evidence," "The evidence is missing," "no good social science evidence," "not supported by facts and evidence," "did not provide direct evidence," and even more sources can be found on the matter. Politics scientists and the courts have stated no evidence exists that voter suppression affected the results, and nobody can provide a single reliable source that provides any evidence. As I stated on the talk page, you cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist, but no evidence has proven that he exists, so we should not be claiming that we are "unable to determine" if he exists. Bill Williams 12:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Every single reliable source states there is no evidence that voter suppression affected the results. Abrams has not provided any evidence, therefore the article should simply state that there is no evidence.
 * To follow up on this - It's worth noting that Abrams herself admits that her claims are not backed by evidence:

"If you look at my immediate reaction after the election, I refused to concede. It was largely because I could not prove what had happened, but I knew from the calls that we got that something happened... I have no empirical evidence that I would have achieved a higher number of votes."
 * The current wording in the lead, then, is a travesty. There is simply no evidence for Abrams's claims, in her own words, and we are contradicting reliable sources by implying there is. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources quoted have vastly different takes from the lack of evidence, ranging from "there is no evidence" (a strong assertion) to "no evidence has yet to be found" (a weak assertion). As this is a BLP and WP must take a conservative/middle-ground voice, the proper summary for the conclusion is "her claims have yet to be verified with evidence", eg staying with the weak assertion. It does not invalid the stance that "there is no evidence" that some sources have taken.  And given she has said she had no evidence when making these claims, we can stay "Abrams said she had no evidence when she made the claims, and no verified evidence has yet to be found as of (date)". M asem  (t) 13:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion. Would this be in line with what you are suggesting?

Abrams was the Democratic nominee in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election, becoming the first African-American female major-party gubernatorial nominee in the United States. She lost the election to Republican candidate Brian Kemp, but refused to concede, accusing Kemp of engaging in voter suppression as Georgia Secretary of State. Abrams has said she has no empirical evidence, and news outlets and political science experts have found no verified evidence.
 * Would this work, or do you have an otherwise preferred wording ? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that works, though you should have an "as of date" in the last sentence, using the date on the last source for it (in case somehow evidence is later found). That neither vilifies her which seems to be one issue of concern (in contrast to cases where others have stated theories that have been proven wrong with evidence) but also highlights that she had nothing to base her claims on. M asem (t) 14:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Excellent. This seems like something that could be agreeable to both sides of the dispute, I would think? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not consistent with the comments of numerous editors here and at the article talk page, so it's clearly not "agreeable..."<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 14:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What specific issues do you have with it? <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 14:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, Abrams' concession in yesterday's election (which Kemp won by a wider margin) might help clear the air a little. There is, fundamentally, a difference between being upset that democratic backsliding cost you an election, and organising and supporting a fascist insurrection because postal votes got counted in Philadelphia, and I think political pundits and Wikipedia editors alike are becoming guilty of bothsidesism here. Sceptre (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP has an RFC on the inclusion of denials in BLPs
WP:BLP 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. DFlhb (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is also a more specific RfC, on the use of ABOUTSELF sources for rebuttals/denials here. Additional input would be helpful. Newimpartial (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Both RFCs were started without prior consensus on their scope or wording. One ran into an impasse (with editors disagreeing on what the options would actually mean if applied), and the other seems to have sputtered out. I've started a discussion to workshop a new RFC, with proper consensus on its scope & options, that would subsume both RFCs above. Everyone is invited to join us in workshopping it; the outcome of this future RFC may have very wide-ranging effects for all BLPs, so it's important that it reflect a wide consensus. DFlhb (talk) 08:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10th November 2022 update

Talk:Wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
I am possibly jumping the gun here a little, but based on this editor's subsequent comments I think it very likely he would just restore his unsourced/unreliably sourced allegations.

My main concern centers around this edit, particularly the comments in the final two senteces of the first paragraph.

There are also the comments concerning Camilla Tominey in this edit and this edit, which I would like an uninvolved opinion on, if nothing else. SSSB (talk) 22:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Dorothy Moon
Describing Dorothy Moon's politics as Far-Right seems libelous at best. Wikipedia defines "Far-Right" as "Historically used to describe the experiences of Fascism, Nazism, and Falangism, far-right politics now include neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, the Third Position, the alt-right, racial supremacism, National Bolshevism (culturally only) and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of authoritarian, ultra-nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, transphobic, and/or reactionary views."

Nothing in her history or background gets close to defining her as "Far-Right". The author has cited the Washington Post as their authority for calling Ms. Moon "Far-Right". It looks like someone from the WAP mentioned her as being Far-Right while making a point but clearly not reporting it as a fact. The whole Wikipedia article on Ms. Moon comes across as a hit piece by a political rival. Taxmiester (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article cites multiple sources which characterise Moon thus. Read WP:RS, and then discuss on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 – Is and opinion piece that calls John Birch Society a Far-Right Organization. They are not Racist Neo-Nazis.  This article was written by left-wing journalist and is an opinion piece, it is no surprise they are spreading so much misinformation. The use of far-right to describe them is pure political hyperbole and nothing more.
 * 2 – Another opinion piece written by a democrat using hyperbole to make his point.
 * 3 – Does not link to the article referenced.
 * 4 – Does not even mention Dorothy Moon in the political op-ed.
 * None of these articles show how these Republicans are linked to the Far-Right. The left makes statements using hyperbole but never connect the dots.  Far-Right has a definition that these politicians, including Ms. Moon, do not rise to. Taxmiester (talk)  20:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Plenty of support for it. Four good sources. And the rest of the content on the page fits just fine.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So, if a credible source misuses a term like "Far-Right", are we just going to accept it? Wikipedia uses the same definition of Far-Right right as just about every source out there.  If these credible sources are misusing this term, we should not just blindly accept it.  Is there not a distinction made between op-ed and news? Hyperbole?  Overusing a term because some television personality uses it wrong? Taxmiester (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See Special:Diff/1121293841/1121324790 about this. Further discussion should best occur at Talk:Dorothy Moon instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There is now an RfC at Talk:Dorothy Moon. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Robin Antin
Robin Antin

Robin Antin is single and does not know Simon Phillips personally. I was able to change her status to single in source text but Simon Phillips still comes up in search results listed as her partner. Please help me to fix this search issue. Thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainstarlet (talk • contribs) 18:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a google problem. As far as I know we have no control over search engine results. It may be that there is just a lag time for them to catch up, or maybe we just have to wait until they send one of their web crawlers our way. Whatever the case, you'd probably have to take it up with them. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Hossein Maher
Hi, Would you please review this article for any possible problems and if it's OK, accept it? Thanks Kabootaremesi (talk) 15:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not what this board is for. I already reviewed it once for you, just to be nice, but it's already in the AFC queue, so that's the place where it should be reviewed and accepted or not. Zaereth (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Peter Strzok
This BLP is about the former FBI agent. User:SPECIFICO edited the lead here and then here in a way that blatantly violates WP:BLP and also WP:NPOV. The result is that the lead now paints a false and dishonest picture, and additionally excludes certain well-sourced information solely because it is unfavorable to the BLP subject. Talk page discussion has been unavailing.

As of now, the lead *correctly* says that in February 2018, the Wall Street Journal reviewed text messages by Strzok and found no evidence of serious misconduct by Strzok. The lead now *omits* that further text messages were released to the public in June 2018. And, finally, the lead now *correctly* says that the FBI fired Strzok in August 2018 for text messages.

With surgical precision, User:SPECIFICO creates the misimpression that the FBI fired Strzok for text messages that the WSJ had essentially said were not very problematic. This SPECIFICO accomplishes by omitting from the lead information solely because it has an unfavorable effect on the BLP subject.

WP:Consensus is not a license to screen out information that hurts people you like, or that helps people you dislike. Nor is it a license to make a BLP false and dishonest. Is it?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Setting aside whether this belongs in the lead, there is an infinite number of wordings you could have used to give an accurate, contextualized, and specific account of the message in question. A review of the many RS accounts of this, and in particular not the very first accounts when the context and detail was still unclear, would have helped to formulate informative, BLP-compliant, NPOV text. The ONUS is on you to do that.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 15:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My understanding of editing policy like WP:Preserve is that we are to try fixing problems, instead of blanking info that we dislike or that we think is imperfectly presented. I am not going to endlessly try to revise the presentation of this information until twenty years from now I hit the jackpot to your satisfaction. I made a good faith effort to address your purported concerns.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * &#32;Anythingyouwant, you appear to be the editor who has added this material, so the onus is on you to ensure that it complies with Wikipedia policies on BLPs. If it doesn't, other editors will remove it. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The editor who removed it is creating a false and dishonest lead, and allowing sourced information only about text messages that are very different from the ones being omitted. All of that is fine?  I think not.  The idea that WP:Consensus can be misused in this way is becoming increasingly common at Wikipedia BLPs, and it needs to stop.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP is the predominant policy when it comes to living people. If you want to add material that others believes violates WP:BLP, the onus is on you to discuss it and reach consensus. Otherwise such material is liable for removal. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP incorporates other policies by reference, e.g. BLPs “must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies….” Lying or propagandizing Misrepresenting the reliable sources in a BLP lead is not acceptable, or anywhere else in a BLP (or at Wikipedia generally).&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When you use terms like "lying" you weaken your argument and make it difficult to WP:AGF. BTW, the lead is supposed to summarise what appears in the article. What you are inserting appears nowhere. It really does look like POV pushing to me, coming at it as a neutral editor who has not read the article before. You really do need to reach consensus on the article's TP if you can. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken to say “What you are inserting appears nowhere” in the BLP body. The BLP body covers this matter in detail.  I never suggested you are lying. My point was that a Wikipedia editor never has an “onus” to convince another editor to stop doing things that are expressly prohibited by Wikipedia policy.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said you are accusing me of lying, but by implication you are accusing the editor(s) who remove your addition of lying. The wording "turned out to be more problematic for Strzok" is not supported anywhere in the text as far as I can see. In fact the investigations into the texts found "Strzok's actions were not taken because of bias." Anything in the lead that suggests otherwise is misleading and violates WP:BLP IMO. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of sentences to the lead that reflect what the article actually says. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:24, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I moved the old "7,000 messages" thing to the body where it belongs per WP:DUE. Thank you for your addition, but my move rendered additional lead content irrelevant, I think. Your content was already in the body, but please let me know if I deleted too much. Politrukki (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems okay to me, although I added a few words.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just as a comment (which may help resolve this), the last para of the lead is far too detailed. Summarize in very broad terms and try to give a brief narrative rather than the proseline that it is; the exact dates of things are not necessary. Most of what I see is body-appropriate material but needs the space of the body to give more context. --M asem  (t) 15:52, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, User:Masem, but even if the last paragraph of the lead were reduced to the following the problem described above would still 100% remain: “On August 10, 2018, David Bowdich, the FBI deputy director, fired Strzok for the anti-Trump text messages.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're writing from a big picture standpoint, that level of detail of that sentence is unnecessary, and you may be able to keep the more problematic aspects that need the full prose allowed in the body to be left there, which would remove the BLP issues. Its clear that his text messages and his firing are lede-worthy material, but how its written now (when I looked), its not written at a high enough level. M asem (t) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You’ve only suggested modifying the last paragraph of the lead, right? But the prior paragraphs wrongly imply that all of the texts were found to be okay by the WSJ.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your phrasing takes something not considered a serious problem by the WSJ (it was a throwaway, emotional, very private, remark by Strzok, not a serious threat of any kind) and makes it sound like a really big deal. That POV is the one pushed by unreliable sources like Trump, Fox News, and Breitbart. You don't want to be parroting such POV here. Advocacy of fringe POV is forbidden. That's why your phrasing is a BLP violation that must be removed. The body can deal with it better. A similar situation exists when someone makes a drunken comment. Society doesn't take it as seriously as when they make it when sober. Emotional comments can easily get inflated importance when political operators discover they can use them. That's what happened here.
 * Strzok's very private discussions with Lisa Page were deemed inappropriate and embarrassing for the FBI, so he was fired. There is no evidence that he ever misused his position to "stop Trump from being elected president" or misused his position for political ends. He just became another victim of Trump's politicization of every aspect of government offices, including the FBI. They felt pressured to act and ended up firing a very valuable agent. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The current wording is good: "A comprehensive review in February 2018 of Strzok's messages by The Wall Street Journal concluded that "texts critical of Mr. Trump represent a fraction of the roughly 7,000 messages, which stretch across 384 pages and show no evidence of a conspiracy against Mr. Trump". " -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to throw a possible cavet here, in that it is known the WSJ has often leaned in favor of Trump, so having that as the only source to judge the content of Strzok's text throws red flags to me. They may not be wrong, but I'd be asking for an independent confirmation, such that that statement can be made w/o mentioning the WSJ. But that might be me looking a bit too far without having spent hours involved in the details. M asem (t) 17:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me if the info is included or excluded. Just as long as we are careful not to attempt (or appear to attempt) to read Strzok's mind. GoodDay (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to this edit to the BLP, including the part that is described in the edit summary, and also the part that is not mentioned in the edit summary. At the time Strzok was fired, the most controversial text message was a text message released in June 2018 that referred to stopping Trump. See Weiss, Debra.  “FBI agent Peter Strzok is fired after sparring with lawmakers over anti-Trump messages”, ABA Journal (13 Aug 2018).  However, after this edit, the lead does not even hint that any text messages were released after the summer of 2017.  Additionally, this edit to the article body seeks to portray the WSJ review as comprehensive even though that review did not include the most controversial text message which was released in June 2018.  Why is it necessary for this lead to avoid even referring obliquely to the most controversial text message that had been made public at the time Strzok was fired?  Of course, it is not necessary at all, and instead is a failure of WP:NPOV.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your addition has zero context. Those additional texts were considered by the DOJ; they simply weren't made public until the DOJ released its report. All of the text messages are covered by "text message exchanges between Strzok and FBI lawyer Lisa Page contained criticisms of Trump and his supporters." People will see the detail in the appropriate section of the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s incorrect. “Mueller removed Strzok from the Russia investigation after text message exchanges….” refers to an action by the independent prosecutor in 2017, before inspector general Horowitz’s investigation.  This lead implies Bowdich fired Strzok based on text messages that don’t include the most controversial one, and thus suggests Bowdich was wrong to fire Strzok.  The lead carefully omits the slightest mention of the June 2018 text message, which was the most controversial known text message when Strzok was fired. Moreover, as to the body of the BLP, you haven’t addressed why you reverted the clarification about the comprehensiveness of the WSJ analysis.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * David Bowdich knew about those messages when he fired Strzok in 2017; they just weren't made public until 2018. So of course he was fired on the basis of all the messages he wrote in 2017. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Bowdich fired Strzok on August 10, 2018 (not in 2017) at which time the most controversial text message made public was the one about stopping Trump which was released two month prior. This lead makes no reference to the most controversial known text when Strzok was fired, nor even hints that any texts (including that one) were released after 2017.  The implication is that Bowdich fired Strzok based upon relatively innocuous texts released prior to June 2018, which is false.  It’s also false for this lead to suggest that no noteworthy text messages were released other than the ones that Mueller used in 2017 to dismiss Strzok from the investigation.  I don’t think we could do backward somersaults through hoops that’s more convoluted than the way we avoid letting readers understand this matter.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to understand the difference between what was made public and what investigators knew. The lead refers only to "anti-Trump texts" That includes the ones that were made public in June 2018 when the report was released, and which were obviously taken into account in his firing. The detail of all that belongs in the body, not in the lead. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * CNN reported in June 2018: “the latest batch was only recently uncovered by Horowitz’s office” (emphasis added).. That batch included the most controversial stuff.  Our lead only refers to text messages that were known to investigators in 2017, and thus implies Bowdich’s action (firing Strzok) was based on the less controversial stuff that was known to investigators in 2017.  So our lead is misleading.  And there’s also the matter of why the article body was recently edited to portray the WSJ review as more comprehensive than it was, and why the article was recently edited to omit a description of the most controversial text message known to Bowdich when he fired Strzok.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The lead now mentions no dates in reference to the text messages. We don't know what "recently" means and can't speculate. It is best to have the lead as general and brief as possible and the details in the body. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. The lead now says: “In December 2017, Mueller removed Strzok from the Russia investigation after text message exchanges…”. Clearly those text message were pre-2018 and exclude the ones discovered by Horowitz in 2018.  And there’s also the matter of why the article body was recently edited to portray the WSJ review as more comprehensive than it was, and why the article was recently edited to omit a description of the most controversial text message known to Bowdich when he fired Strzok.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see you have changed the lead. It makes no difference. Just because the messages were only made public in 2018 doesn't mean they don't date from 2017. I'm really not sure what you are trying to prove by all this. I didn't make the change to the body, so can't comment. But I really think you need to take a step back as it is clear you have a POV. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, the most controversial text messages were made public in 2018, and (per WaPo) they were also discovered in 2018 by the DOJ Inspector. They include the most controversial text messages, whereas our lead falsely implies that Bowdich fired Strzok because of the same text messages that led Mueller to fire Strzok in 2017.  That’s just false and misleading.   and it was false and misleading even before I inserted the month of Strzok’s dismissal by Mueller.  You are also incorrect that you did not edit the article body to make the WSJ analysis seem more comprehensive than it was. On the other hand, you’re correct it was another editor who edited the article body to omit a description of the most controversial text message known to Bowdich when he fired Strzok, and I never suggested you made that edit, although I did ask you repeatedly to comment about it.  If there’s a POV here, it’s not mine.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record I have made two edits to the article and, both to the lead. The other changes were a restoration of edits another editor made. They were not my original edits. Again, take a step back. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When you want to revert an edit, you need not revert subsequent edits as well, as you did here to the article body. That’s Wikipedia 101.  Rules against edit-warring prevent me from correcting that error, assuming it was an error, but you can correct the error whenever you feel like it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert, I restored a previous version. There is a difference. It wasn't an error. But it is incorrect to suggest that I was the original editor who added that text. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ”On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which restores the page (or a part of it) to a previous version.” That’s what you did to the article body, I’ve never said or implied anything to the contrary, and you’ve never explained why you made that revert. I have other things to do now, bye.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I restored the previous version because it goes without saying that the WSJ could only review messages that had been released at the time it did the review. To say "at that time" is redundant. It is clear in the article that further messages were made public later, but we don't know how many additional messages were released or whether they made much difference to the overall proportions and we shouldn't speculate or imply. Lard Almighty (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * And now another editor has edited the article body (while saying in edit summary that he’s editing the lead), to make sure we completely obscure what was the most controversial text message at the time Strzok was fired.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems clear that the editor used the undo function to revert an edit and didn't notice that the info was added to the body not the lead. Editors make mistakes, I don't see the need to discuss it here. They gave additional reasons why the feel the addition was problematic, it would be more productive to discuss those concerns here or on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IMO the best solution is simply to remove the WSJ review from the lead. If the comprehensive review missed out on some important messages because they had not yet been found or released and the review was never updated based on the newly found messages, and given that it's simply a review by a random media organisation however respected it may be, it doesn't seem that important to the Strzok biography to be in the lead. If things change in the future e.g. of Strzok uses the WSJ investigation as a significant part of his lawsuit we can consider then what to do. I would add if the WSJ review is so important, the body doesn't seem to establish this AFAICT. It's briefly mentioned but I don't see any significant detail like I would expect if the WSJ was really an important part of Strzok's life. Nil Einne (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, removing the WSJ from the lead is one way of solving the problem that I pointed out at the outset of this thread, and so the WSJ has been removed from the lead. But this leaves another, somewhat less urgent problem with the lead, mentioned above: when Bowdich fired Strzok from the FBI in 2018, it was not because of the same text messages that had been released the previous year (which were the basis of Mueller removing Strzok in 2017 from the Mueller investigation).  Instead, the most controversial text messages known at the time Bowdich fired Strzok in 2018 had recently been made public by DOJ Inspector Horowitz, and Horowitz’s investigation is what uncovered those new text messages earlier in 2018.  This is all supported by reliable sources, and when time allows I’ll try to make sure it’s adequately explained in the BLP article’s body.  Then perhaps the lead can be tweaked to reflect that Bowdich fired Strzok in response to newly uncovered text messages, not just the text messages that Mueller found out about and used as the basis for removing Strzok from the Mueller investigation.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article states: "On August 10, 2018, David Bowdich, the FBI deputy director, fired Strzok...". The DOJ report, including the making public of previously unknown messages, was released on June 14, 2018. Mueller only removed Strzok from the Russia investigation in 2017; he did not fire him, pending the investigations. Strzok was fired after all messages were in the public domains. I have edited the body by adding "On August 10, 2018, David Bowdich, the FBI deputy director, fired Strzok for the anti-Trump text messages,, including those that were uncovered in the DOJ investigation." to make that clear. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I clarified that: “fired Strzok for the anti-Trump text messages, including those that were uncovered in Mueller’s DOJ investigation as well as ones discovered later in the DOJ Inspector General’s investigation.”&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Use the article talk page as the Lord 9ntended. Bear in mind NPOV.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 16:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a clarification. Use the talk page.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 17:50, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don’t insert your comment between mine and the one I was responding to. Thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Additional concerns today

 * Unfortunately, the drama continues at this BLP, eating up editors’ time and distorting the BLP. User:Lard Almighty does not want the BLP to indicate that, as the ABA Journal has stated, the most controversial messaging from Strzok (that was known at the time he was fired from the FBI) had been uncovered not by the Mueller Investigation, but rather was uncovered later by the investigation of DOJ Inspector General Horowitz.  Inclusion of this material in the article body had been done satisfactorily to two editors yesterday, but was deleted from the article body today by SPECIFICO.  But Lard Almighty doesn’t want any trace of this information anywhere at Wikipedia, so Lard Almighty has deleted it from the footnote too.  Neither Lard Almighty nor SPECIFICO has provided the slightest information that any reliable source disputes the whitewashed information.  I will look for other sources to satisfy Lard Almighty, but so far there is 100% sourcing against his POV. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk)}
 * &#32;Anythingyouwant is quoting the opinion of one writer in one source to suggest that some messages were more controversial than others. There is no evidence that some of the messages were more controversial than others and certainly there is not a general consensus in the sources that this is the case. Therefore cherrypicking one quote from one soure is WP:UNDUE. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You haven’t cited any sources whatsoever to support your position. Now I get to spend the rest of the day coming up with multiple sources to rebut your POV.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't need to provide sources. You are the one wanting to make the addition; it is up to you to source it propoerly. To avoid WP:UNDUE, we need to ensure that we are summarising the sources properly. That means we look at all the sources in balance and summarise what the general view is, even if we do select one quote as an example. The only source that I have found that uses the wording that you want to insert is the ABA one, so using that quote is WP:UNDUE as it does not reflect the general view of all sources. That is a WP:BLP violation. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When only one reliable source addresses a matter, it is appropriate to use that source. There is an exception according to WP:BLP: “If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.”  But we are not talking about any such allegation or incident, we’re just talking about chronology and comparison.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Many sources address the second investigation and the new messages it discovered. The only one that describes those new messages as "the most controversial material" is the ABA. None of the many, many other sources I have seen that cover those new messages use that language. Therefore quoting it in the article is WP:UNDUE because it does not summarise accurately what  all the sources are saying. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not shown a single source that in any way contradicts the ABA Journal on this point. As I say, I will find multiple sources corroborating the ABA Journal, and then you can cook up some argument for rejecting those too, if you would like.  The process of summarizing reliable sources obviously does not require us to leave out material that is only covered by the most in-depth source.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Further on this latest problem: The insertion is text with ellipsis cherrypicked from a straight news report that gives commentary on the fact not used in the sentence for which the reference is cited. Moreover the fact is already Verified by another source citation. The cherrypicked, cobbled quote introduces OR commentary on the article text, a BLP violation. The quote within the footnote was correctly removed by . Moreover, as the article text in that section details at some length, the "controversy" arose when Trump used the incident to amplify his narratives about the "Russia Hoax" and "Mueller witchhunt" etc., not due to heightened RS concern about the messages themselves.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no objection whatsoever to restoring the quote into the footnote but without any ellipsis. Are we done here?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC
 * Nobody's agreed to that. Same problems w or w/o ellipsis. That's just a minimal fingers-in-the-cookie-jar proposal. It's been removed and that's how it stands.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No, because it remains WP:UNDUE as it is not a fair or accurate summary of what all the sources that cover the new messages are saying. This belongs on the article TP as you have been told earlier. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The process of summarizing reliable sources obviously does not require us to leave out uncontradicted material that is only found in the most in-depth source.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe you shouldn't be editing WP:BLPs if you don't understand the concept of WP:UNDUE. It is not up to other sources to "contradict" what one source says. If there is not broad agreement amongst the sources about something, then we should not give undue weight to one sources that is reporting that thing. Seriously, this discussion belongs on the TP. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t think you properly understand policy. WP:Undue is about majority and minority views, and a view is not a minority view if there’s no published disagreement with it.  Let’s suppose arguendo that ABA Journal is the only source that says the Horowitz batch was more controversial than the Mueller batch.  According to your opinion, that would make this ABA Journal view fall under WP:FRINGE.  But something is only a fringe view if it “departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field.”  There is nothing in the ABA Journal article that departs significantly from anything published in any other reliable source.  So it’s not fringe, it’s not a minority view, and it’s not undue weight just because ABA Journal has gone into greater depth than some other RS’s.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A view is a minority view if only one source reports that view. What departs from other sources in the ABA article is precisely the quote you want to highlight. None of the other sources that I have seen that address those messages use those words. It is precisely a WP:FRINGE view because no other sources concur. Therefore we should not give the impression by using them that it is a fair representation of the sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. If one reliable source (X) gives a complete birth date of the subject, but none of the other 50 reliable sources gives more than the birth year, that very obviously does not make the complete birth date a fringe view. Source X is entirely consistent with the other 50 sources. One way to look at it is that the reliable sources are acquiescing to the accuracy of source X. In any event, there is no plausible way that source X is conveying a minority view.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If that one source represents an expert or authoritative source for that topic or field, in no way does it make that source a minority view. For example, if we were talking about extremist groups. We nearly always include an attributed entry on the SPLC' Hate Watch, even if no other source mentions this area. DUE needs to consider the weight of speakers behind that material and not just proportion of publications. M asem (t) 00:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A date of birth is a fact. It's not a "view". Whether an email exchange was "most controversial" is a matter of opinion, a "view" (covered by WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE).We have no idea whether Debra Cassens Weiss is qualified to offer that opinion. And since no other WP:RS that I can find supports that view, it is best to leave it out. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a whole bunch of sources that refute what you've said (emphasis added): User:Lard Almighty has not pointed to any reliable source that suggests otherwise, and no reliable source does suggest otherwise, because it's a factually correct statement reported in multiple reliable news sources. The idea that Wikipedia policy prevents us from saying this even with inline citation in a mere footnote is manifestly incorrect. Lard Almighty is mistaken to say, "This is WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and a WP:BLP violation." It's none of those things.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * "Most controversial was this email exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page...."ABA Journal
 * "The 'we’ll stop it' text is considered Strzok’s most controversial text message to have surfaced."Fox News
 * "Strzok expressed little regret for the most controversial text exchange with Page. In the text, Page says Trump is 'not ever going to become president, right? Right?!' Strzok replied that Trump won’t. 'We’ll stop it,' he said."Associated Press via Boston Globe
 * Ditto from PBS. Etc, etc.
 * Finally! All I was arguing was that the onus was on you as the editor who wanted to add the opinion that these emails were "the most controversial" to source it properly and show that it was not just the opinion of one writer in one source, and thus a fringe view which we should not give undue weight to. If you had simply done what you have done today much sooner, we would have saved a lot of time. I should also note that the sources you have provided qualify "most controversial" with words like "some of", "one of", " is considered", so words like "among" and "considered" should be used if we resinsert (something like "Among the messages considered most controversial was the email exchange between Strzok and then-FBI lawyer Lisa Page in which he stated "We'll stop" the election of Trump." as this is actually what the sources say and it shows that it is an opinion. Strozk's explanation of what he meant by "we" is included in the article, so there is balance. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * When I get a chance, I will reinsert into the BLP, with gobs of additional references. However, that’s really not my job, User:Lard Almighty.  Per WP:PRESERVE, “As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the ‘finished’ article, they should be retained if they meet the three core content policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.”  There was nothing wrong with this material with one footnoted reliable source and inline citation.  If you wanted more sources, that’s fine, but they were never necessary.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There most certainly was something wrong with the text you inserted, and the additional refs you have listed show that. More sources were needed as is now clear, because the ABA article is in a minority to state the opinion that the email exchange was the most controversial. Most of the others qualify that opinion in some way ("some of", "one of", " is considered"). Therefore to rely on the ABA article alone is a breach of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE because it is not a fair representation of what the sources say. My suggestion for rewording addresses that issue, given the additional sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just provided quotes from news reports in ABA Journal, Fox News, Associated Press, Boston Globe, and PBS that all say it was “the” most controversial. Consistent with that, many other sources said it was “among” the most controversial, or something like that.  The ABA Journal was not in any minority, and it was not opining about anything.  None of the news reports suggested whether the news report author believed the text message should be controversial or should have caused an uproar, they merely reported that’s what happened.  If you can improve article text, that’s not a reason to delete article text.  In any event, I’m glad we are getting closer to a resolution here, thanks.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I repeat: I should also note that the sources you have provided qualify "most controversial" with words like "some of", "one of", " is considered",. So yes, the ABA journal is in a minority by saying (without any qualification) that these emails were the most controversial. A fair representation of all the sources would be to add some kind of qualifyer like "considered" or "among". Remember, this is opinion, not a provable fact, and, especially when we are dealing with superlatives (best, most, worst etc.) in a BLP we must be very careful to ensure that such opinions are extremely well sourced, especially if they are negative, and a fair representation of all available sources. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don’t give a hoot whether we say “most controversial” or “one of the most controversial”. You could have changed it to the latter without any objection from me.  Both are well-supported by multiple reliable sources, and consistent with each other.  And neither of them is the least bit negative, they merely categorize the tweets messages .&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I couldn't have because the only source you provided before last night was the ABA one. As has been pointed out by several people, the onus is on you to provide adequate sources for the addition you want to make. Several people reverted because they didn't feel it was adequately sourced. You have now done that so we can move forward summarising the sources that are now available.. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If I do it, it seems much more likely to get reverted, so I’d appreciate if you would. Thanks, User:Lard Almighty.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lard Almighty @SPECIFICO @Valjean User “anythingyouwant” has already been TBANed in the recent past for this kind of pov-pushing and disruptive behavior— only allowed back AFTER he begged for a second chance, and promised to lighten up. This thread is a war zone. And it’s one of several immediate examples of AYW breaking his promises, and continuing to indulge in the same disruptive behavior that got him banned in the first place. Before this, in just the weeks prior, AYW was attempting to censor contributions about the 2020 Trump coup-attempt by inserting pov-pushing OR Jan 6th denialism. tl;dr version- he’s edit warring again, with no intention to stop.
 * Can someone here with the time and acumen take this over to AE? Finally?? So the rest of us don’t have to keep wasting what little time ‘we have’ to edit articles in the face of AYW’s ongoing exhausting passive-aggressive edit wars? 2601:282:8100:5AA0:B5F6:429F:E042:C308 (talk) 13:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Denied.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, you should be using the article talk page and you need to demonstrate consensus and yes it's BLP issue with respect to Strzok, and yes it will be reverted if you make such an edit without addressing the above and demonstrating consensus. <b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 18:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) The ABA journal is not an authority as to political controversy.
 * 2) The controversy only arose because of Trump's misrepresentations and the feckless cohort of Republicans and media flacks that echo them.
 * 3) We do not insinuate POV into the article via a footnote that makes assertions beyond the article text narrative.
 * 4) Any mention of the "controversy" would need to give the full context as reported in RS. That NPOV narrative would discuss point #2 above.
 * It seems you’re in a minority here, SPECIFICO.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant please let others chime in. That's what this board is for. Thus far you have no agreement with your view.<b style="color: #0011FF;"> SPECIFICO</b> talk 19:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to go vote anyway.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of brief thoughts; while I don't think Anythingyouwant's intended contribution represents a BLP issue, and can be supported by a high-quality source, for me, the better course of action is to leave it out as something of an outlier opinion. If it were a significant opinion, one would expect to see it elsewhere.  As ever, reasonable mins may differ on this point.  Secondly, this really does belong on the article talk page, or even, possibly at WP:NPOVN.  I really don't think BLP policy is the crux of the matter here.  That said, cheers to all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Barbara O'Neill
Whoever created the page Barbara O'Neill has done it without consent from Barbara and has come from unreliable and untruthful sources. They are defamatory and denigrating to a living person. I have obtained my information direct from the source. I am requesting the page on Barbara O'Neill either get taken down or allow me to organise correct changes direct from Barbara herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.40.44 (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Subjects of articles do not have any special say in the content of articles that cover them, so no, that request is out. If you could point to specific passages in the article you have a problem with, and the reliable sources you would cite if you were to provide an editing suggestion, that would be helpful. Zaathras (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify while subjects do not have any special say in the content of artices, in a very limited set of circumstances the subject's request for deletion of an article will influence our decision to delete the article per WP:BLPREQDEL. However I had a quick look at the article and am certain it will not apply here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe there are BLPPRIMARY issues solely citing a press release from a government commission about its investigation. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OWN and WP:COI. You can make suggestions at the article talkpage. If other editors think they are reasonable, they may act on them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nadia Oleszczuk
Is the statement by a Wikipedian, "In an interview given for "Radio Zet " she confessed she had been appointed to the council after her boyfriend resigned from being in the council and gave his seat to her" about a living person, Nadia Oleszczuk, in the AfD nomination at Articles for deletion/Nadia Oleszczuk, acceptable under BLP policy, given the connotation of "confessed" and the framing? I haven't looked at the youtube video (not normally a serious source) that is claimed to support the sentence, but the article itself currently includes a (result of an editing compromise, if I remember correctly) describing the attempt by Do Rzeczy to devalue Oleszczuk's nomination to the Council. My concern is that the deletion debate risks being about whether or not Oleszczuk should be devalued as a "replacement for her boyfriend" as part of the notability debate. Boud (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The people have spoken, and the article is going to remain on Wikipedia. Ghost of Kiev (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Lakshmi Mittal
Lakshmi Mittal

There are debates regarding whether Lakshmi Mittal ever became a British citizen, yet his Wiki page continually fluctuates between him either being Indian or British. He is known to be a UK-resident, however there are no articles comfortably demonstrating that he is no longer an Indian citizen, the country of his birth, or that he ever acquired British citizenship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.151.183 (talk) 18:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Mirza Masroor Ahmad
Mirza Masroor Ahmad is not the Muslim caliph, rather he is the leader of the Ahmadiyya sect. The Ahmiddiya sect due to their disbelief in the finality of the prophet hood with Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W), are as such not Muslims. Yes they do identify themselves as Muslims but they are not in any way Muslims and neither are the accepted by the wider Muslim Ummah as Muslims. As such I would like to request as a Muslim myself, that you edit or remove the Article so that it does not make reference to Mirza Masroor Ahmad as a Muslim leader or as a Muslim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.101.190.29 (talk) 13:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Then you must have been pleased when you read the Mirza Masroor Ahmad article and saw that it doesn't call him the Muslim caliph. See also WP:CALIPH. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, the article doesn't explicitly even call him a a Muslim leader or Muslim either other than references to him being part of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community. There are two categories that maybe do, Category:21st-century Islamic religious leaders and Category:21st-century Muslim scholars of Islam but categories naturally have to be simple. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the law of India seems to agree. But the law is not the whole story. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps an important point is that most of the time we have no reason to get into such issues on articles on people unless it is directly relevant, dealing with it in other articles. So while there is some mention of the issue of whether Ahmadiyya are Muslims in the article on them, and more in Persecution of Ahmadis; the Mirza Masroor Ahmad only discusses his engagement with other Muslims and their acceptance thereof. Likewise neither Joseph Smith nor Russell M. Nelson really deal with their issue of whether either subject is or was Christian but we have a whole article on Mormonism and Nicene Christianity. Nil Einne (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do we care about what Indian law has to say about Muslim Caliphs? Isn't India a Hindu nation? Ghost of Kiev (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hindu or not, India has a lot of muslims. TBH, I mentioned it as a kind of "sez you" to the OP:s "are as such not Muslims". I dislike such statements. The relevant point is that the Mirza Masroor Ahmad article doesn't say that he is the Muslim caliph. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Cowan (alternative medicine practitioner)
Talk:Thomas Cowan (alternative medicine practitioner)

I would like to call the editors of Wikipedia to task for applying the term pseudoscience to Dr. Tom Cowan, and there are many other terms used to describe him, which would be in the same vein, but this is about pseudoscience and its application to things one does not understand and therefor would label as pseudoscience.

The problem I have with applying the term pseudoscience to Dr. Tom Cowan and other Covid deniers, is that the claim they make is that Virology has no evidence to prove the existence of a virus as a pathogenic particle, and that the methods Virology uses are unscientific. For Wikipedia to be neutral could mean that one should understand an argument at the very least, rather than label it pseudoscience because it does not fit with one's current understanding as an editor.

Labelling something as fundamental as a scientific dispute in a dismissive manner is not neutral, one could argue. At first I considered that perhaps pseudoscience would be the correct term for Virology as applied by Dr. Tom Cowan, but you will note that the group of researchers in his camp refer to Virology as unscientific, not pseudoscience, which is the term applied to them.

I considered that one might broaden the neutrality of the descriptions of people whose views contrast with orthodoxy in the scientific world, otherwise known as accepted scientific understanding, by discussing knowledgeably the views of Dr. Tom Cowan and others who give evidence that the exercise of Virology is unscientific.

The Covid deniers claim that Virology is unscientific because there are no control experiments to disprove that the experiment itself does not create what is called a virius, neither in the methodology of the culture process, nor in the sequencing of the genome, nor in the PCR. They claim that the discipline of Virology is based on a circular logic where Virologists start with an artificial object provided by the scientists themselves rather than having isolated and proven that the particle called a virus is a pathogenic particle existing in Nature. The dispute states that neither do they prove contagion and Dr. Tom Cowan discusses the evidence for this as do others who dispute germ theory in general. Basically, virologist claim that the only way to find a virus is to culture it, because there is not enough to find in a diseased host to be isolated.

There is a paper by Dr. Mark Bailey detailing the argument in detail titled "Farewell to Virology", which is recommended for its clarity. https://drsambailey.com/a-farewell-to-virology-expert-edition/

There are also references in Wikipedia to Dr. Stefan Lanka and his court case in Germany challenging anyone to provide a paper showing that the measles virus had been isolated. He is another figure in this view that viruses do not exist as pathogenic particles. Ultimately this case was decided in favour of Stefan Lanka in Germany. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Lanka#cite_note-s%C3%BCdkurier-10

I see that the main problem being with orthodoxy, rather than the scientific method. Because "everyone" agrees does not yield truth. A more "neutral" approach by the editors of Wikipedia would go a long way toward truth based on evidence rather than truth based upon consensus. Science can be determined by what can be shown to have more than one view of reality. One should be able to understand that there are various theories and that the germ theory is just that: it is a theory, and there are other theories, such as terrain theory, or other so-called pseudoscientific theories which operate equally well in reality if understood, one could say, by way of being neutral. I have no problem with the term pseudoscience being applied in the sense that something varies from consensus in the established scientific circles, but ultimately, one should understand and discuss an argument and a theory more deeply before labelling anything with the term pseudoscience. I think it will be more difficult in future to be that lazy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bothsidesofthecoin (talk • contribs) 02:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding as to how Wikipedia determines article content. Read Neutral point of view, and take particular note of the comments regarding 'false balance'. Per long-established core policy, we reflect scientific consensus, not abstract (and inherently subjective) notions of 'neutrality'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly, given some of the delusional stuff that Cowan has espoused, being called a "pseudoscientist" (which, by the definition, he undoubtedly is) would be the least of his issues. Black Kite (talk) 10:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Sam Bankman-Fried
A fairly inexperienced editor (less than 40 edits) keeps on removing any mention that Sam Bankman-Fried was a major political donor to Democratic Party from the lead. There is an entire section of nine paragraphs coving Bankman-Fried’s political donation history. Per Manual of Style/Lead section “the lead must correctly summarize the article as a whole”. I think mentioning his donation history in the lead is in line with the manual of style for biographies. I would appreciate additional eyes on this article as there is new news daily and will likely be for months to come. Thriley (talk) 02:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's an appropriate summary of the entire section of donation history. You should get consensus before reinstatement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

John Campbell (YouTuber)
John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

I initially attempted to address my concerns through the talk page of this article, but the discussion section I was replying in was archived as I commented. This follows my observation of the edit history-there appear to be a small group of POV Warriors guarding their viewpoints in relation to this living person, and taking strategic action to prevent open and free discussion.

The entirety of Section three of this biography fails to follow NPOV guidelines. The first quote of David Gorski 'while at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had "seemed semi-reasonable", he later became a "total COVID-19 crank"' is quite obviously Value Laden language, intended to bias all following information.

Next, the paragraph on aspiration fails to link to a specific video, and misquotes it's cited source article ( "Aspiration is a common technique but not without disadvantages so it has not been recommended by many countries", the article states: "The technique used to be commonplace in the U.S. and globally, but many countries stopped recommending the practice in recent years.")

The paragraph on ivermectin cites a New Zealand tabloid quoting Meaghan Kall who says of one of John Campbell's hypotheses: "{it} appears this was based on anecdata on social media driving wildly damaging misinformation". This appears to be Value Laden. This also fails to link to specific videos or publication by Campbell, making fact-checking difficult. Further, the Health Feed Back citation at first appears to infer that Campbell was responsible for a false comparison of clinical outcomes for patients who took remdesivir vs. ivermectin, when in his video he clearly is responding to a submitted abstract which postulates the comparison.

The paragraph on the Covid 19 vaccination represents a current event. No linked videos are given, though Campbell is directly quoted from his videos by the article authors. I can't verify their accuracy, as I'm not sure which videos they're referencing. One quote cited is demonstrably inaccurate: "Campbell's video was viewed over 2 million times within a few weeks and was used by anti-vaccination activists as support for the misinformation that COVID-19 vaccination will cause a wave of heart attacks" Fact Check does indeed reference a video by Campbell, but there's no support in the article that he a) promoted the research, or b) that it was used by anti-vaccination activists. There is a Twitter link to a chat thread between three people.

The paragraphs on Covid Deaths and Monkey Pox both state that comedian Jimmy Dore cited Campbell's work, but do not clarify if this reference was in jest or seriousness, or in what possible manner this is relevant to Campbell's biography. The term "misinformation" is used here: "The misinformation was embraced and amplified by Jimmy Dore and his comedy co-host Kurt Metzger, achieving wide currency on social media" but the cited article by Politifact does not claim Campbell's video is "misinformation".

All in all, these references seem to be designed to discredit John Campbell's work, and do not attempt to offer a balanced or neutral point of view. The video subjects chosen are all recent, and only cover controversial subjects. His videos on fetal development, depression, African flooding and tribal medicine are omitted. Sources are cherry-picked to frame his opinions in a negative light, and to attempt to portray him as some sort of failed neutral arbitrar of current events. Sources are over-used, and placed in such a way as to attempt to add credibility to biased assertions, such as a citation relevant to the beginning of a paragraph placed at the end, directly after a biased statement. Campbell's written publications are ignored, save a few referenced in links. Additionally, as this article primarily attempts to defame Campbell's past personal opinions on (then) emerging data and research, the sources which are cited in order to refute his opinions are often out of date in relationship to current scientific findings. This gives the appearance of a baseless witch hunt, and lowers the general credibility of Wikipedia.

Finally, on Talk Vitamin D, discussion was actively thwarted, see section 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Altairah (talk • contribs) 11:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You say "there appear to be a small group of POV Warriors guarding their viewpoints in relation to this living person, and taking strategic action to prevent open and free discussion.". The reality, of course (as you will see if you look at the many edit requests) is that - like many other articles about people that pushed COVID-19 conspiracies and misinformation - a small number of editors are preserving NPOV in the face of multiple requests that the falsity of their statements be whitewashed. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You mention that "the paragraph on aspiration fails to link to a specific video", that the paragraph on Ivermectin "also fails to link to specific videos or publication by Campbell, making fact-checking difficult.", that "No linked videos are given, though Campbell is directly quoted from his videos by the article authors. I can't verify their accuracy, as I'm not sure which videos they're referencing.", and so on. I'd strongly encourage you to read WP:OR. In particular, from WP:PRIMARY, "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."
 * The contents of the section appear to be based on reliable secondary sources, do you have reliable secondary sources disagreeing with them? JaggedHamster (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * There is a problem here. Taking a look at the top-level COVID section, the article presently states that Campbell claimed something in his videos but then the article proceeds to stay that information is wrong due to established studies. While that is the right way we want to proceed on pseudoscience claims, none of the sources in that section specifically talk about what Campbell said, only the scientific/medical explanation of the broad, correct science. That's not appropriate. And no, we can't plug in his videos as links to support that as that becomes OR - we need third party sources in this instance to say "In such-and-such video, Campbell said (this COVID myth)". Now, I haven't looked in depth at the three sources that lead off the COVID section (including the Science-Based Medicine link) to see what detail they say about Campbell's work, though from the titles I get the impress they do discuss to some degree about Campbell's support of certain COVID myths. If so, those need to be reused in the later parts of the COVID section to be clear it is not WP's original research to assess those videos and assert he is wrong.
 * Assuming that can be done, while I do agree we need to remind the reader that these are all points of pseudoscience, it is not necessasry to go into depths of why each point has been disproven, instead pointing to one or more of the pages we have that talk about COVID myths and their disproval. In other words, that entire COVID section can be parred down to what I'd estimate as two paragraphs. The long-windedness in the explanations is tipping into a BLP problem, and it is better to just say what he was noted for saying, and then saying that these are all COVID myths that have been disproven. The less said in this, the better this will look as a BLP while still noting his COVID myth promotion. --M asem  (t) 13:38, 16 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with Masem. The article as a whole reads like synthesis. By that, I mean it really, really reads like synthesis. And I haven't even looked at the sources yet. There are only a handful of them that are used most predominantly, but the first thing I noticed is how thoroughly and randomly dispersed they are throughout the article, all jumbled together and combined in various ways. It's written like a Jack van Impe sermon. "The bible says horrendous times are coming. [Jerimiah 30:7] It's the time of Jacob's trouble, [Kings 17:34] and the gates of hell will open. [[Revelations 16:24]"


 * Now, Admittedly, I haven't read the sources, but I'm just going by what the article reads like and those little red flags that pop up. It looks like we are taking statements from the subject and providing our own secondary-source analysis of it, using unrelated secondary sources to refute those claims rather than getting those analyses from secondary sources. That just what it reads like. Just sayin'. Zaereth (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had more of a look through the sources and I'd agree with you here, they're good sources for demonstrating that he's promoted disproven COVID myths and that it's WP:DUE to include this but there's too much additional commentary that's not sourced to them. I don't think there's an NPOV issue as such, reliable sources are clear that the claims he's making are discredited and we reflect that, but the WP:SYNTH elements should be removed. JaggedHamster (talk) 09:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to point out that Newshub is not a tabloid by any stretch of imagination. It's the news site of NZ's major private FTA TV broadcaster. As with many modern sources, it does gossipy coverage or celebrities, still it's far from a tabloid. Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Kasie Hunt
Persistent addition of poorly sourced and politically motivated WP:BLP content, attempting to give prominence to an on-air comment from five years ago. Needs more eyes and perhaps page protection. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have semi-protected that article for a month. Cullen328 (talk) 06:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Graham Hancock
I think we need more BLP eyes on this article. I've recently conformed the section order and headings to a more usual presentation, covering Early life, Career, Themes, Media appearances, and Reception. The anti-pseudoscience crew wants to inappropriately name the Reception section "Pseudoscience" and place it above the Media appearances: but reception to a person's works and appearances should follow, not precede the description of the works to which which others are responding, and we typically don't label the section with an word describing an opinion, even if it is the prevalent opinion. It precludes the inclusion of opposing opinions. Skyerise (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

As expected, I've been reverted. The article at it currently stands violates WP:BLPSTYLE, both in tone and balance, as well as WP:BLPKINDNESS. I believe my proposed reorganization meets all of these guidelines better than the current presentation. The subject has very publicly complained about his treatment on Wikipedia in the Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse and online. Skyerise (talk) 14:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The "anti-pseudoscience crew"? Wow. Anyway User:Govvy made this revert changing Skyerises "the author of a dozen books" back to "best known for his pseudoscientific theories" which was sourced and seems accurate to me. They also changed the organisation. User:Joe Roe made these edits. They don't seem to violate NPOV. Doug Weller  talk 14:55, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It is normal to divide description from opinion. The facts of his authorship and work should precede the opinions of others. It a standard presentation principle, both in the lead and in the article body. Skyerise (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually it is not when they are primary known not for their theories, but for how BS their theories are. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Really, so you're asserting that the average Joe, who watches the Netflix series, primarily knows the subject because of scientist's negative opinions of the subject? Skyerise (talk) 15:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that assertion.  Doug Weller  talk 15:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Unless that average Joe is a WP:RS somehow whats the relevance? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No I am saying our articles are based on what experts, not the average Joe, think. Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My revert was more about reverting back to the page alignment, the way the headers for each section before. The change by Skyerise seemed to scatter section is it looked and felt badly ordered. Govvy (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, hard to tell from my view. Sorry. Doug Weller  talk 15:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again, you are presenting your own preferences as "standard" without a whiff of a policy or guideline to back it up. I have never seen a "Themes" section in a biography before. Nor do I agree that it's usual to have "Reception" sections in articles about people (as opposed to creative works). The current structure integrates descriptions and reception of his specific works in their respective subsections (often preferable). Most of these are under the heading "Pseudoarchaeology" because that is what reliable sources universally describe them as. There is no BLP violation there. Your version had, for example, one paragraph describing his latest documentary in the fourth section, and then another two paragraphs discussing its reception at the bottom of the page. At best that is annoying for the reader. At worst it is a deliberate attempt to bury what independent sources actually say about Hancock and his work. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You know as well as I do that these are communal judgement calls. I choose not to WP:WIKILAWYER but rather gather opinions from the members of the relevant WikiProjects. Don't try to tell me how I have to argue my case, grasshopper. :-) Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe more eyes needed here. The article has to make clear that mainstream archaeologists do not support Hancock's theories, but I am a bit wary of overloading the article with words beginning with "pseudo". Hancock has made a rod for his own back by bypassing mainstream academic journals and selling books directly to the public, and this does not amount to validation of his theories no matter how many books he sells. Nevertheless, the article should try to avoid reading like a hit piece.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Actively trying to avoid the word pseudo like that is a major NPOV violation in addition to WP:FRINGE. WP:PSCI policy is explicit The pseudoscientific view should be clearly described as such. We don't obfuscate that terminology. KoA (talk) 15:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Straw man. I have not and am not interested in removing or softening such content. I just don't believe making it a section heading is either correct or kind. Skyerise (talk) 15:29, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What does Biographies of living persons have to do with the situation here? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Joe here, you literally split one section into two and kinda buried it. It's not helpful to the reader. Govvy (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I already know what you guys think. I'm waiting to see what the real biographers and BLP WikiProject think of the undue emphasis of misusing headings to convey opinion rather than type of content. Skyerise (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * “Real biographers”? As opposed to? Doug Weller  talk 15:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to oppose yourself to anyone you choose, Doug. Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hardly a constructive reply. It was a serious question. Doug Weller  talk 16:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nearly 100 biographies written for this website, but every night I still wish upon a star to be a real biographer :( –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't referring to you Joe, you seem to have good faith and do good work. Skyerise (talk) 15:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to note that the subject has publicly stated that he is neither a scientist or an archeologist, and does not claim that his work is either: that he is only a journalist who presents the research of others. Sure, he then makes wild speculations based on the research he presents. I think he's great entertainment! Could be worse, he could be saying it's aliens. Y'all need to lighten up. I get it, we have to report what science says about his wild speculations, but I think then you also have to report how he views himself, which hasn't been done. For the Wikilawyers, that's WP:BLPBALANCE. Skyerise (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The first sentence of the article says that he's a journalist. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats WP:FALSEBALANCE. His own views about himself are not as valid as WP:RS's views about him, you know this... Right? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the request is that we say "he has not claimed his work is scientific and has stated he is neither a scientist nor an archeologist". I would like to see where he has said that. But have no issue with us saying that if it can be sourced. Slatersteven (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if sourced, I'd really question that being WP:DUE. It's a common trope for quacks, political pundits, etc. to say "I'm not a scientist, but . . . {insert science claim}." I seem to recall some of our fringe guidance somewhere calling this out specifically, but out of time for the morning here to go searching. KoA (talk) 15:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * He says it right at the beginning of the first episode of the Netflix series (0:47): "I don't claim to be an archeologist or a scientist. I am a journalist, and the subject that I am investigating is human prehistory." Skyerise (talk) 16:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry that is not enough for me. I note he does not say "I am not" he says "I don't claim to me", it's not a denial. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the consensus that matters, right? Skyerise (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Whatever he says he is or isn’t, his works are what they are, pseudoscience/pseudoarchaeology and we have sources for that. Doug Weller  talk 16:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've said, I'm not arguing for the removal of those opinions. Skyerise (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

While I am sympathetic to editorial concerns over things like section ordering, word choice, and writing brilliant prose that doesn't come across unduly as a "hit piece", or whatever, I remain unclear as to what the concern over BLP being presented here is precisely. I don't think BLP policies are being violated explicitly and the "anti-pseudoscience crew" (whoever they are) are keenly aware of this policy. Is there some aspect of WP:FRINGEBLP that those in editorial opposition to the OP are missing here or is this just a call to arms? jps (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

It is a good point about consensus, so lets all of us who have posted a few times here shut up and let others chip in. Let us see what t he consensus is. 17:16, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia repeats what is stated in reliable sources by the weight of those sources. When it comes to matters that are potentially critical of BLP high quality sources need to be used. In this case the references supplied are the published works of two respected historians - stating that the subject of the article advocates for pseudoarchaeology. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Since more eyeballs have been requested on this article, my eyeballs have surmised that these edits seem designed to bury crucial information about the subject at the end of paragraphs or later in the article, after most readers will have given up and moved on. As such, they appear to be giving undue weight to esoteric or less-controversial aspects of his career for which he is definitely 'not' best known. Famous <b style="color: #00008B">dog</b> (woof)(grrr) 18:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that many readers don’t get far past the lead.  Doug Weller  talk 18:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The article is mostly fine, in my view, but the "Pseudoarchaeology" section is a bit problematic for a few reasons. It starts with this lead in of general explanation of what cherrypicking is, rather than simply describing the subject at hand, which comes off as a rhetorical device, not encyclopedic prose. Second, the section has been inflated to an absurd degree by the way it's formatted, with big quotes surrounded by white space, unnecessary bullets, etc. Finally, it focuses heavily on this BSC feud, going into detail with a back-and-forth exchange about this particular thing, like it's telling a story and it also feels rhetorical and weirdly specific, like when someone is telling you about their jerk coworker and they're telling you about these specific people and events that make sense to them but that you have little frame of reference for. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On the first point: The source writes it like this, general explanation with two examples pertaining to Hancock.
 * I agree that the BBC section is overly lengthy. Hypnôs (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources supply the facts, but they don't dictate WP:STYLE. We should still practice good, reader-first editing. For the BBC stuff, perhaps that section can be condensed and given more context as to why that particular exchange is important to this person's short biography, or removed altogether. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 20:42, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hypnos and I have shortened the BBC section. It was Hancock's biggest claim to fame in the 2000s, but obviously less so now.
 * I think the section based on Fagan should be kept as is. It doesn't explain cherrypicking, it explains what characterises pseudoarchaeology, and gives examples of how that applies to Hancock. This is important because a common misunderstanding amongst Hancock fans, encouraged by his "I never claimed to be an archaeologist!" line, is that when we say something is "pseudoarchaeology" it's an appeal to credentialism rather than an assessment of the logical structure of an argument, or lack thereof. (I don't like the term for that reason, but we're stuck with it.) –&#8239;Joe (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP concerns and long term warring at Krystle Matthews
Would really appreciate more eyes on this, re: terminology that has been debated at the talk page, but which continues to be flip-flopped within the article long after the discussion has ceased. There seem to be two issues at hand: the description of NewsMax as either a far right source or an investigative agency, and whether Matthews's comments were controversial or racist. The latter is the current description, and that's a trigger for WP:BLP concerns. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds pretty racist in my opinion, although it's unclear if she is talking about treating white people like crap or just her constituents as a whole. It's a leap to make that connection, but not a far one. The question is, do the sources call it racist? If so, I normally would say we should probably attribute it to the source, because racism is often more subjective than clear cut. However, the writer in me remembers the old writer's creed, "Show, don't tell." Telling me someone is racist quite often just comes off as condescending. It's like telling me that Darth Vader is evil. (It's like, "I can see that for myself dammit. I have eyes, don't I?") I think it reads much better without it, but if a majority of sources use it, you may have a hard time removing it from the article.


 * Keep in mind that, as a politician, the subject is also a public figure, which means many of the rules that would apply to the average Joe are much more lax in these cases. It's often sort of a "the public needs to know" kind of thing with politicians, and in that case you have to move into the realm of NPOV, with balance and weight. Zaereth (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You hit the answer early: we don't call someone racist based on our interpretation. That's WP:OR regardless of how clear it may seem. We follow the WP:RELIABLE. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is (at least for now) a distinct lack of sources that call her comments racist. I removed it pending someone finding a good source for it. I didn't go for the tougher fix, which is trimming the Project Veritas content. It's currently taking up an evidently undue ~60% of the article's prose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, it's WP:UNDUE, which can be remedied by trimming the quotes and finding balance through actual career activity. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 03:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In looking at the recent edit history, the term 'racist' has been added so many times that I'm considering bringing this to ANI, with the possibility of rev/deletion of WP:BLP violations. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Revdeletion seems unnecessary to me. It may not belong, but for a public figure and for something that's an opinion and probably one easy to find even if not in RS I don't see why we need to bother. However if it keeps being added then protection should be considered although it sounds to me like it might be a little late since having lost her re-/election I suspect the fuss is going to die down unless she tries to run again in the future. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reason for revdeletion either: "racist comments" is not a violation IMO. I do agree that the word has been correctly excised, since there seems to be no neutral and reliable sourcing for the term. Drmies (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be, . I was also looking a little further, to some of the September edits that led to page protection: ; ; ; ; . Thanks, 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:CC3A (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I appreciate that. I semi-protected again: this is stupid. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia moderators must stop people from fighting uncivilized battles in this edit war. Ghost of Kiev  (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm our job is to stop edit wars in the first place. If you were to edit war in a highly civilized manner, you would still be edit warring. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Well, the subject did provide grist for the stupid mill. Still, we're in a time when it's easy to become dulled to all but the most egregious chatter, and I appreciate that you have a good ear for this, and for BLP violations in general. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 18:37, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation on a Userbox
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Homosexualist/U/appauled (2nd nomination) about a possible violation at User:The Homosexualist/U/appauled. StAnselm (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit summary possible BLP
See diff: The edit summary says that the former school councillor or whatever, who is presumably still alive, was charged with drug posession without source. Is this considered BLP? Fermiboson (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * In my view, yes it is a BLP violation to name someone like this, and the edit summary should be redacted. Neiltonks (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, as I can find no evidence for this. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:REVDEL applied. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Vajiralongkorn
Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajiralongkorn The 2nd paragraph of the Controversies Column used poor sources and needed to be reviewed or removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soicattalk (talk • contribs) 09:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the alleged censorship in Thai media, I'm not sure if this alleged incident is widely published enough by RS to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The English source is WP:DAILYBEAST, which was republished by Yahoo News. There is a German source that has linkrotted. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There are information leaks from the palace and/or from the hospital, as must have been the case here. So, it is not impossible that it happened. However, I think that a gossip, after seeing the princess wearing strong shoes, is more likely. --FredTC (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as no reliable to confirm the incident as you mentioned so I think it would be more accurate if the messages be deleted until the correct and good qualily sources report the incident. Socila media is full of fake news more than enough. Soicattalk (talk) 14:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Al Baker
I've never seen something like this, but this article includes an entire section on the subject's daughter, who clearly appears not to be notable. So, it's essentially a bio within a bio that has bypassed notability requirements. The implication of doing this is that her notability is inherited from her famous father, who played for 13 seasons in the NFL. Also, the section on the daughter appears to essentially be a promotional piece for the food business she operates with her father. My instinct was to remove the entire section, but then I found this AfD that amazingly determined all the content about the daughter should be merged into the father's article. Please note that one of the two editors who "voted" to merge the content is the sock who added all of it to the article. Therefore, if you eliminate the input by the sock in the AfD, that would leave just one editor supporting the merge, and two others giving convincing arguments for deleting the daughter's article. Should the entire section about the daughter be removed from her father's article? Stoarm (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, clearly inappropriate, remove it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like it was added as a result of this AfD. Some of the content seems relevant but most needs to go. Woodroar (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree with this Woodroar. Maybe a mention of the daughter in the context of the restaurant, but this is way, way too much.  Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Another editor removed the section about the daughter, and she was already mentioned in another section with regard to her involvement in the food business. Stoarm (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Robert R. Reisz


According to The University of Toronto's Student newspaper Varsity paleontologist Robert R. Reisz has been found guility of misconduct (including sexual harassment) by the university. . I don;t think a student newspaper is the calibre of sourcing needed to include this, and I don't think any RS have covered it. There's been a couple of attempts today to add the allegations to the article, but there has been no serious disruption. Regulars may want to keep their eyes on the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is in response to my report at ANI, which includes mention of edits going back to the summer. I submitted there, as stated, to request administrative attention for the possibility of some defamatory content. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * My thanks to and  for attention to the most recent edits. The series of June edits are also of some concern, including, but less egregiously, perhaps, the preceding poorly sourced stuff, as well. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:BCEB:6E72:A02C:C51B (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree that something like that should have better sources per WP:RSSM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I should add a bit of context into these allegations and their consequences. The two accusing researchers, Bryan Gee and Yara Haridy, are well-established members of the paleontology community who have accumulated a significant amount of citations in the past five years (Google scholar sources:, ). Robert Reisz has reportedly been banned from the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology 2022 meeting according to Gee and Haridy, a report coinciding with a revised code of ethics publicized by the SVP twitter account in late September: after the allegations were published. I attended SVP first-hand, and I can confirm that Gee and Haridy attended while Reisz did not attend. The two organizations investigating Reisz, University of Toronto and SVP, are both obligated to keep their results confidential, which combined with the small size of the paleontology field explains and justifies a lack of wider press coverage. The Varsity report is the closest thing we have to directly accessing the results of the U of T investigation. Regardless, the report seems to be following basic journalistic conduct: asking authorities for statements and then publishing those statements. I recommend that everyone involved in this discussion read through the report fully. It seems to be mostly describing the results of the investigation, more than just the events and rumors which led to the investigation. I would consider it a reliable independent source on the situation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * College publications vary wildly, but reputable ones can be accepted as reliable for campus and local community events with caution, and I agree with Fanboyphi's evaluation in this case. This leaves the WP:DUE question of how much (if any) attention our article should give the matter, and the fact that (on the record as we have it at the moment) no other outlet seems to have picked up the story does need to be taken into account. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your insights, . For my part, I'm not arguing the veracity of the claims, nor the character of those who brought the complaints. And of course, we can't accept WP:OR. It's interesting that the results of the investigation must be kept confidential, and that the student paper nonetheless was able to access and publish the findings--well, that's what journalists do, often for better. Wikipedia ought to be careful about functioning as an auxiliary to an exposé. My initial concerns regarded poor sourcing, POV tone that ran up against WP:BLP guidelines and a recurring restoration of controversial content, based first on poor and later on WP:RSSM sources. If there's a consensus that the student paper is WP:RELIABLE, or if better sources are presented, then a discussion of what to add will be appropriate. 76.119.253.82 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Pretty much that. Apart from WP:RSSM, there is WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NPF to consider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Added to article, removed by me:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Gabrielle Wolohojian
An IP connected to the subject has requested the removal of personal information that may be out-of-date. Other IP users keep adding the material back. In June, the IP attempted to remove the edits, but was told to take it to the talk page diff. More recently, the connected user has been posting edit requests to remove the content: diff and diff of recently added content. Similar material had been added to a related article: diff. Thanks, Stedil (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * So why isn't worth a mention if there are sources out there that at least say they were together in 2014? Source Snickers2686 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Ian Macpherson (comedian)
I'm Ian Macpherson. My account was hacked in June 2022 by someone with a grudge. This includes scurrilous references to Stewart Lee, my partner, and I appear to be from Yemen. Can you remove all changes in this period and revert to original text. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.201.16 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ian Macpherson (comedian) currently appears to be in good shape. All the vandalism took place on June 19, 2022. Although you are discouraged from making substantive additions to the article, removing obvious vandalism is perfectly fine. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German
Several recent edits from new users are adding the name of the suspect to Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German despite consensus on the article being talkpage to apply WP:BLPCRIME and not name the suspect. The most recent addition said this is in the edit summary  Not being familiar with this case nor US media I have no idea if this a valid reason to name the accused, whose trial is due to start in March 2023, or whether the name should be omitted until after the trial, assuming there is a conviction. Nthep (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your reversion was correct. Reinstatement would require consensus from a discussion that BLPCRIME should not apply in this situation. Not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Lambert C Boissiere, III
You have included his father's time on the New Orleans City Council as being his service. You even note in the body of the article that it was his father who served on the council, yet it is in the summary column. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.151.33.254 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Pavel Naumov
An editor added content claiming accusations of "sexual harassment". This is a false claim. Naumov was accused of harassment for sending work emails on weekends and having longer-than-needed research conversations with a co–author, but the word "sexual harassment" is not used by the accuser (who was the provost of the college). Yet, multiple reverts are bringing the defamatory and highly-charged words "sexual harassment" back without providing any references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Naumov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.193.196 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed any information that is cited solely to court documents as a pretty clear violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Such info needs to be found in reliable secondary-sources. Zaereth (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise those documents are unnacceptable as refs. - Roxy the dog 10:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what words the accuser uses; what matters is the words WP:RS use. Court documents are indeed not RS, but this has been covered by other sources e.g. the Baltimore Sun. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Sun website is unavailable in my country. They should keep up, as we left the EU. - Roxy the dog 10:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing to do with leaving the EU. It's GDPR which is UK law. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Caroll County Times sourced says that it was alleged Naumov stalked a colleague. I have added this to the article, because this seems to be adequately sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Pavel Naumov notable? Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm not sure. His citation record on google scholar looks extremely weak to me, but obviously citation counts vary widely between different fields and I'm not sure whatever Naumov's discipline is a high or low citation field. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Computer science tends to be a low-citation discipline, but as a former associate professor, he very likely falls short of WP:NPROF. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked some more at the page history, and the page started out as being about him as an athlete, and then evolved over time into him being an academic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are the academic and the athlete even the same person? The birthdates of the two are completely different. . Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it looks like someone changed the birth year, by a lot, when it started to be about the academic: and . The changes were made progressively by a series of IPs over a few days. Maybe AfD is in order. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've made a post at WP:AN Administrators%27_noticeboard. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Currently, the page cites this source for his date of birth: . Clearly, it fails verification. From the current version of the page, this is his web page bio: . From an old version of the page, there is, instead, this: . I'm not sure, but it sort of looks like two different people. I tend to think the academic fails WP:NPROF, but perhaps (I'm not sure) the athlete passes WP:NSPORT. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the athlete was once the National Indoor Champion (Russia), I think that person probably passes WP:NTRACK. Perhaps the best course of action is to roll the page back to the stub it was before it was changed to the academic, and leave it at that. Certainly, that would make the BLP issues vanish instantly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There would still be mess to cleanup with the wikidata entry and such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and I just looked at what the rollback would be, and it would have to be updated with his first-place finish. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NSPORT requires subjects to meet GNG, and to always have at least one SIGCOV source cited in the article, so we shouldn't restore the page to the athlete's biography unless/until GNG is established. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see how maintaining this article hijack is tenable either. I think probably the best solution is a history split and have both articles taken to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I just did a web search about the runner. I couldn't find any SIGCOV about him, just stats, and I'm no longer entirely sure that there is any real coverage of a first-place showing. I'm no longer thinking that he passes NTRACK, and maybe that page should also go to AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you check the Russian coverage using his cyrillic name? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * No. (And I'll leave that to other editors.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to his bio at (I assume) the Russian Wikipedia: . The cites there look to be stats pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines as Cullen, Naumov falls under WP:NPF. What is even weirder is that all the allegations come from him while the school is silent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The school, as a former employer, probably does not comment in public about personnel matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: I have moved the underlying edit history for the athlete to Pavel Naumov (long-distance runner). Cheers! BD2412  T 03:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article about the academic is now at AfD, see Articles for deletion/Pavel Naumov (logician) the titles have been messed with again and Pavel Naumov is now the title of the athlete article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've now nominated the athelete article for deletion, see Articles for deletion/Pavel Naumov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Mohamed Said (actor)
Mohamed Said (actor) gives exactly one reference, which does not actually state his birth date, while the article includes it from God knows where. The rest of the article also seems to be almost directly translated from the Swedish source, but that's a different issue entirely.Fermiboson (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I had a search through swedish news sources and couldn't find enough I think to justify notability, so this article should probably be deleted. I've added a notability template for now though Tristario (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Armen Yesoyan
Armen Yesoyan (born October 29, 1980) is the Acting Director of "Environmental Project Implementation Unit" State Agency of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milenakira (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Does he have an article in the Armenian Wikipedia? If not, user:Milenakira, maybe you should write one there if you think he’s notable enough.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bruce W. White
Diff here contains potentially private/sensitive info without source. Request redaction Fermiboson (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You appear to be correct, so I went to WP:Oversight and requested redaction.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Birth name sourced to single source on Gypsy Taub
Two editors ( and ) have recently argued in favor of including a birth name in the article Gypsy Taub that is only found in a single source from 2013 ("Oxana Chornenky" from SF Gate ). A defunct website that may have been under control of the article subject previously had a slightly differently spelled name ("Oxana Chornenkaya" ). The article subject appears to have been in the news a lot recently in relation to the Paul Pelosi attack, and those articles generally use the name "Oxane Taub". I cannot find any other article at all that contains either of the claimed birth names, which seems odd given the recent level of news interest in her. However, neither of the other editors appear interested in including the "Oxane Taub" name in the article, but are very insistent on including the claimed birth name from the SF Gate source in the lead (although not in the main article body). I haven't been editing much the past year, and maybe there have been shifts in the general BLP policies, so any advice or guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect. I have zero interest in keeping the "Oxane Taub" name out of the article. I want to include her birth name which was given on her own archived website (she is in prison) and also by SFGate, a reliable source, in 2013. Chornenkaya is just the feminine form of Chornenky. There is nothing at all unusual about this with Russian names. She is a bit player in the story about the attack on Paul Pelosi. The most in depth reporting about her past was written by Sam Whiting of SFGate in 2013. I see no reason to doubt his reporting. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The SF Gate article looks like a very good source for this particular information. It's a well-written article and not at all like op/ed or tabloidish material. I understand your argument, Wally, about not wanting it to come from a single source, but the nature of the source, being as it comes from a direct interview with the subject, strongly suggests that giving the name is not any kind of a privacy issue for her, and I see no reason to doubt the source. As for the spelling difference, that could very well be just a difference in naming conventions, like Henry is to Henriette. Or it could be easily explainable as there is often no standard spelling when translating names that come from a language not based on the Greek alphabet, for example, Muammar Gaddafi (Gadhafi? Qaddafi? Khadafi? Qadadhafi? Who knows?) in which case it may just be prudent to list them all. Doesn't look like a BLP violation. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said at Talk: Gypsy Taub, Nikita Khrushchev had three daughters and their surnames were Khruscheva. Yuri Andropov had two daughters and their surnames were Andropova. Boris Yeltsin had one daughter, and her maiden name was Yeltsina. There is nothing at all unusual or surprising about Russian surnames having masculine and feminine variations. It is commonplace. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, although I don't know much about Russian names, that's fully understandable, sort of like Leif Erikson and his sister Freydis Eriksdottir. Whatever the case, it doesn't look like a BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Zaereth, for your response. That makes sense to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Heidrun E. Mader
It sounds as if the person wrote the article about herself. Who else would call a received graduate scholarship "among the most prestigious" ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorResolutus (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I see no indication that this article was written by the subject. There are usually telltale signs of an autobiography; ways that people write when talking about themselves that are very difficult to hide unless you really know what to look for. The way they use prepositions and other cues for spatial orientation, for one example. None of that is present here. However, it is possible that the article was written by someone with close ties to the subject, but to know that for sure you really have to compare what we have in the article to what is found in the sources.


 * That said, the article needs a lot of work. There is some puffery in places, and some bad grammar/poor punctuation in many others. Lots of MOS problems. The "life" section reads like a resume, while the "work" section sounds like it's promoting her book. I notice we only have three sources. Five are all the same one (a university profile), but the other two are book reviews, so I'm not sure about notability, but those two reviews are probably enough to keep it from getting through AFD. Oddly enough, we don't give any of those reviews in the article text, which would actually be interesting for the reader, but instead they are used to promote her book. All in all, I'd say it needs a lot of TLC. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Jess Dixon
Jess Dixon

Provincial politician in Ontario, Canada. Would appreciate some eyes from anyone willing. I'm trying not to edit-war with someone really committed to trying to frame this politician as controversial. It's my belief that because of BLP's policies, particularly undue weight, that this section should be deleted, but maybe it could work with a re-write. There's a bit of back and forth in the talk section. Previous attempts by myself and others to address tone and accuracy have been undone by the creator of the section. Open to feedback! And I appreciate folks looking into this given that it's not the most exciting biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Article on Randall "Tex" Cobb
Sense of humor

Randall "Tex" Cobb was known and acknowedged for a very dry self deprecating sense of humor. This rare sense of humor reflected a distinct intellect and reflected well on his intelligence and awareness of the world within which he lived earning the respect from men he had beaten and been beaten by while boxing.

Examples include the Johnny Carson show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2HHcFlwAo and this one at a roast for Larry Holmes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yiaczZWFQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.39.11 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not a noticeboard matter. Please go to the article's talk page and make your suggestions there.  Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * There needs to be a reliable source that supports this otherwise it would be original research Tristario (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Joyce (writer)
Her mother is Myra Joyce and her father is David Attenborough.

Her mother is Myra Joyce and her father is David Attenborough. She is married to actor Paul Venables, and lives in Gloucestershire with her husband and four ...

Her father was Martin Joyce

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2180333/Rachel-Joyce-My-darling-stoical-Dad--real-hero-novel-win-Booker.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:7700:E09E:2D69:F25E:C11:DB36 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverted the vandalism, which was only added on the 29th of November. Thanks for notifying, though you could have easily removed the vandalism yourself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Najib Razak
has been making extensive removals and overhauling content on the article for Najib Razak, without discussing it. They've also added some copyrighted content. first brought this up on the talk page some time ago. This contributors major edits almost never include any edit descriptions. For instance: here and here. Some diffs were found to have included copyrighted content by - see at the bottom of here. Some of the additions also violate WP:POV and WP:BLP - e.g. here. I have tried to ping the user on both the article talk page, their talk page and my own, but there has been no reciprocation to discuss this. I hope that someone else can intervene to avoid having to undo or monitor any ongoing efforts to overhaul this highly important and controversial article without any discussion. Thanks. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree that the one link about BLP issues are in fact BLP issues and should have been reverted. The user likes to add a lot of puffery, it seems. Negative puffery, but still just adjectives meant to puff up the article. However, that's about the only thing that relates to this noticeboard. Most of what you're describing is a "problem" or "disruptive" user, which requires admin intervention in most cases. Where you really need to take this is someplace where all the admins hang out, like WP:ANI. Zaereth (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Just a note to say I have never encountered the concept of "negative puffery," but it certainly seems a useful one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's like negative energy. Most people haven't heard of it either, but it's the core principle of inflation theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics. By negative puffery, I mean things like "most controversial figure of the 21st century", "infamous for its corruption", etc. Positive or negative, it's just filler. Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Arcahaeoindris, I notice you took my advice and brought this to ANI. The next piece of advice I'll give you is that ANI is a place for dealing with behavioral issues, so you'd do much better to be a little more specific to that point rather than simply copy/pasting this message there. ANI gets a lot of traffic, so don't expect people to just start digging. You need to show a good number of diffs that establish a pattern of disruptive behavior, and from what I've seen there are plenty to choose from. Just the WP:I didn't hear that behavior is in itself not conducive to a collaborative endeavor. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kanye West
There are some active discussions on the talk page that would benefit from broader participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Robin L. Garrell
There is currently a campus issue and an IP editor is edit warring to add it sourced only to the google doc of a circulating petition. More eyes are needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I blocked the IP range from the article for a week, and tried to explain the issue in a bit more detail on their talk page. I also watchlisted the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Juan Branco
There is a SPA which claims that what a lawyer of a person accused of rape says to his defense should not be on Wikipedia. --Delfield (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The SPA is doing a POV pushing. Please check that page. --Delfield (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1125392621&oldid=1125373731 . It is not written anywhere in the sources that the woman reported "abuse", "coerce" and "threat". What is written is just false. --Delfield (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael Brescia and Andreas Strassmeir
The Wikipedia bios of two apparently still living persons highlight allegations of their involvement in a terrorist attack for which they have never been criminally charged. While the Aryan Republican Army does have some notoriety even apart from this, Michael Brescia and Andreas Strassmeir almost certainly would not have individual articles if not for this aspect of it. The Michael Brescia article has existed since 2006, and this seems never to have been raised. DefThree (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I thought this would get more of a response by now. I don't know whether these individuals count as public figures, but either way, they were never even charged let alone convicted in connection with the bombing.  Per WP:BLPCRIME, is it really OK for Wikipedia to highlight such allegations? DefThree (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CRIME it looks like these articles should be merged into Oklahoma City Bombing, although I notice their names aren't even mentioned on the page of the main event (which makes it seem even more questionable that they should have their own dedicated pages). I haven't looked at it much but I agree these articles seem questionable Tristario (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd actually be inclined to merge Brescia to Aryan Republican Army, where he is discussed. It's not clear whether there's anywhere to merge Strassmeier, but I've deleted the section in his article on the OKC bombing as incredibly tenuous scandalmongering Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with that merging. I'm not sure what to do with Andreas Strassmeir, he does seem to have some notability, but it's almost entirely in connection with the Oklahoma City Bombing (and his connection and involvement in it seems speculative). I'd probably be inclined to support deleting it per WP:CRIME unless anyone has any other thoughts Tristario (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor abuse of power and repeated vandalism
Hello, I am writing to you concerned about Wikipedia editor Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He has committed multiple counts of vandalism and seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Wikipedia page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Wikipedia page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Wikipedia page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Wikipedia. It is my request that you block Wes Sideman from the ability to continue to abuse his editorial power on this page. Please ensure that he can no longer remove positive articles, add false negative information, and generally continue his vandalism of this page. Thank you.

Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783 Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view Chad Johnson’s Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.116.74 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Wes sideman Valereee (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any vandalism or "abuse of power". The only material removed was cited to the Daily Mirror, which is NOT a reliable source.  If material is to be added to Wikipedia, it needs to be cited to a reliable source.  Wes sideman did exactly describe the reason they removed the material, but instead of finding a better source, it looks like you have edit warred with them, and then ran here and falsely accused them of vandalism.  Not a good look for you.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Paul Charles Farrer
I am not sure whether this newly-minted BLP passes WP:GNG, but it's certainly having WP:BLP issues right from the get-go, citing a source of Church Militant (website) which is of course not a WP:RS. Elizium23 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I went and nominated it for AFD. No way they are notable, and the entire article appears to be some sort of WP:COATRACK anyways.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)