Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive358

Bianca de la Garza
LTA Eostrix/Icewhiz added content to this article that appeared to be problematic according to WP:BLP policy, including WP:BLPBALANCE. I eventually removed the contentious content after becoming more familiar with BLP policy and the sourcing standards. Recently, over my good-faith WP:BLP objections and request for talk page discussion per WP:BLPUNDEL,  has continued to add similar content into the article. Assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 00:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like some inclusion is due -- The Boston Globe, Boston Herald, and Esquire are quality sources. However, we should avoid an outside's party claims about the subject's presumed knowledge; something more along the lines of "Whatever Shoe Company included de la Garza in a lawsuit where they were seeking to recover money that had been embezzled by their then-chief financial officer, alleging that some of those funds had been used to support de la Garza's businesses." -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * fyi, there is a discussion started at the article talk page; from my view, a lot of sensationalism and allegations seem to have driven coverage around an otherwise routine recovery action; WP:NOTSCANDAL applies, and while some sources may be generally reliable, I think it would be helpful for editors to review what Nat Gertler is looking at, e.g. how much of those sources are repeating claims, allegations, gossip, etc, and whether fair and balanced content can be developed for a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article as a whole, the section on the legal case was basically the best sourced section of the whole article. Much is unsourced, much that shows a source fails verification. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you cleaning up the article; it is important to get the article right - in the article talk page discussion, I alluded to how the one source not included in the recent addition is a later source that seems to indicate the earlier coverage is sensationalism . There does not seem to be much left after the tabloid aspect is removed - that there are sources reporting allegations and gossip does not necessarily support inclusion in a BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 05:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There are sources reporting a lawsuit. That's not an allegation, that is a genuine situation that she is in, being sued. It's a civil matter, so this is not a WP:BLPCRIME situation. The in-depth Boston Magazine source hardly shows that the rest was sensationalism; indeed it shows that the funding for much of what is covered in our article on her came from the man who would be convicted for embezzlement. That article also indicates that she settled on the lawsuit. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Lex Fridman
Some editors have removed content critical of Lex Fridman from reliable sources. The quote in question is from an article which was evaluated and deemed reliable on the RSN by 5 editors, given it is written by a senior correspondent at Business Insider who sought out expert commentary on Fridman.

The quote reads: "Though Fridman has touted affiliations with MIT and Google, AI and machine-learning experts who spoke with Insider said Fridman lacks the publications, citations, and conference appearances required to be taken seriously in the hypercompetitive world of academia", attributed to Julia Black.

A number of editors have long had an issue with any critical commentary of him on the page. Chase Kanipe removed this quote which unfolded into an argument on the talk page, with Kanipe claiming this violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, and claiming it is an "anonymous quote" (it isn't, it can be attributed to Julia Black). Jtbobwaysf has also been arguing on the talk page for months (see archives) to remove any critique and calling the black piece a "junk source".

Can we get some independent input here to address this? How do we determine which quotes to include/exclude? Cheers. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Brent McIntosh
Hi, I am requesting your help with some minor edits to this article, noting that I work with at Citi. We posted this request on the Talk page about a month ago with no response yet.

1)	We noticed the information about his job title at Citi is outdated. His current title is Chief Legal Officer & Corporate Secretary. This is reflected in his biography on Citi’s corporate website and also in this Bloomberg profile.

2)	The mention of his previous membership with the Council on Foreign Relations is inaccurate. He is a current member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I’m including here the membership roster of the Council as well as another source that references his current membership. A logical edit here would be to move the Council reference to serve as the first sentence of that paragraph: “McIntosh is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, …”.

I appreciate your time and consideration of these suggestions. LowneyJen (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Both fixed (the CoFR was in fact listed twice; I have removed the incorrect duplicate). Thank you for bringing this to our attention here. Please see also WP:About you. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pigsonthewing Thank you for your help! LowneyJen (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pigsonthewing Thank you again for your help. I should point out that Brent is no longer a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, but a regular member. If that sentence is removed, you could simply note him as a member of the CoFR within the first sentence of the “Civil Society” section instead.
 * Also for your consideration, Brent served at the U.S. Department of Treasury in another role prior to his Under Secretary role in 2019. In March 2017, Brent was nominated to be the General Counsel of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. He was confirmed by the Senate in August 2017 and served in that role until September 2019. You could also use this as the source for the article’s second sentence where it’s noted that a citation is needed. LowneyJen (talk) 20:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Additional eyes needed on contentious article Martin Kulldorff
There has been tremendous discussion on this article around a specific paragraph and source, specifically one sentence. Looking at the wording and citations, it appears to me to not be presented in a neutral manner. I reworded this to maintain the same content while separating the fact an essay was published from the criticism of the essay, and clearly noted the source of the criticism to make it clear that it was not the opinion of the editors (which is how it appeared to me on first reading). See talk:Martin Kulldorff for my discussion, as well as other heated ones about this topic. The source used for criticism of the article is a reliable one, but reading it appears to not be ideal in terms of NPOV in my opinion, specifically:"Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial, formal tone." My revision attempts to summarize the article in a more formal and impartial tone.

Reviewing previous discussion on the talk page, I feel it's necessary to seek outside perspectives. GeogSage ( ⚔Chat?⚔ ) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Soule
The original article accusing Soule has been taken by the original journalist with the following explanation - (https://web.archive.org/web/20200603181625/https://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr4erf?new_posdown) Furthermore no investigation, charges or civili proceedings were made against Soule. This section is therefore in violation of a living person's biography and unnecessarily defaming the subject of this wiki article without a qualifying source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D291:4D0:90C8:C09B:56A1:9D58 (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The IP OP was blocked, which is fine. However, this post raises points about balancing mere accusations ultimately supported by coverage of WP:BLPSPS, against WP:BLPCRIME and WP:DUE? The heap of cites about this winks at WP:NOTNEWS. Right now it appears to me that the event was career-ending, or at least trajectory-ending. That's pretty important as far as the enduring noteworthiness of an event. I don't think it needs its own section, though. It's at the end of the subject's chronology anyway. I'd support at least shedding several unneeded refs, and removing the section heading. JFHJr (㊟) 01:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The allegations against Soule got enough coverage from multiple RS that it deserves inclusion, given their seeming major impact on his career, I don't think it would be due to remove mention of it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Does it need its own section, in your view? JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given that it seemingly ended his career, maybe it would better as a subsection of the career section? Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My idea is to delete the heading altogether so the allegations appear at the end of the 2010s, as they would chronologically. I'm feeling hands off though unless there's a consensus to do so... JFHJr (㊟) 03:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Captain's name on Ever Given article
In the lead section the captain is named in connection with an accident. Is that appropriate? 78.149.135.163 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems odd that he is named there but not at 2021 Suez Canal obstruction. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed it. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Aimee Carrero
There seems to be a dispute of the using 'Dominican American' vs 'Dominican'. Multiple WP:RS indicate she has a Puerto Rican father which makes her de-facto an American, thus suitable for using 'Dominican American'. Q T C 19:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * If anything, if we follow MOS:ETHNICITY, it'd be American, over Dominican. Q  T C 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the issue of Aimee Carrero's dual nationality, it does not explicitly say that she acquired US citizenship to support those arguments and I believe that she should, you know, give an example to several articles about foreign-born celebrities based in the United States (e.g. Nicki Minaj) but hey, what happens is that I found some unknown IPs who insist on bringing up the same issue of the dual nationality of two Dominican actors'pages, knowing now that they were not in the opening sentences. 190.167.174.98 (talk) 03:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * De-facto isn't correct if the person is born outside of US borders. The American parent must register them with the US embassy as an American (preferably before their 1st birthday).  It requires some paperwork and a little time, plus fees.  I know this from real world experience.  Having an American parent qualifies someone to be an American citizen, but it isn't automatically granted and isn't valid until the process is complete.  So we don't assume, we verify, as some parents can (and do) intentionally NOT get US citizenship for their children, and the child can later do this, but may choose to not.  I know this may sound like spitting hairs, but that IS the process to become a US citizen, if you aren't born on US soil. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 04:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I'd say yes and no. Technically they would qualify as a US citizen, but qualifying and making it official are two different things. A parent has until the child's 18th birthday to file a CRBA form with the consulate, yet failure to do so doesn't disqualify the child from becoming an official citizen after they turn 18. They can also do it by either applying for a US passport or filling out a different form and providing proof of birth place and parent's US citizenship, without having to go through all the hassles of immigration. (I know that from a good friend of mine who, despite being Caucasian, is proud to call himself African-American.) However, there are many problems with trying to deduce a person's citizenship, such as the laws of the other country for one. Germany, for example, typically frowns on dual citizenship and wants people to renounce US citizenship to become one. The point being that we really need reliable sources to sort this kind of thing out or we're delving into the realm of synth. I'm not sure that citizenship equates to ethnicity, however. For example, I'm a proud Alaskan, an American by citizenship, but Welsh by lineage, and a mix of Irish, Briton, Native American, and mostly Viking by DNA, any one or all of which I feel is my ethnicity. I don't think it's something we can arbitrarily declare about a subject unless reliable sources do so first. Zaereth (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Generally, if you call someone an American in common language, that doesn't speak to their ethnicity, it refers to the citizenship, as there is no American "race". So if you claim they are born outside of the US, you need to verify before you claim they are "American".  There are a few exceptions, like a military family in Germany having a child while stationed there, the paperwork is done at birth and is trivial because of the military link, but this isn't that case.  Regardless, you really need a source before you claim "American", which shouldn't be difficult to find, a RS calling her an American, for example.  My point is that you can't assume in a BLP when it comes to citizenship, you have to do a little due diligence. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Involved user:

Liced Serna
Buenas tardes

Conozco personalmente a la jugadora Liced Serna y la información que está en la biografía es falsa, la parte que dice que es novia de la esposa del jugador Kevin Agudelo, por favor eliminen esta información y brindemos información de la dirección ip de la persona que está haciendo esos cambios, para denunciarla a las autoridades. Muchas gracias Un saludo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.213.125 (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * What you personally know is irrelevant. What appears in reliable secondary sources is our business here. If you have a problem with unsourced content, you are probably free to remove it (just one time: do not fight by editing). If you have a problem with what a particular source says, ask about it on the article's talk page. Please understand, capable and interested editors may disregard non-English posts because this is the normative language of the forum here (for everyone to understand). Although I understood your post just fine, I'm replying in English because this is a forum. Gracias. JFHJr (㊟) 23:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like IP OP has been reverting unsourced content. It hasn't been re-added. There's no action to take now, but I'll be happy to watch this page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Pokey Reese baseball player
Did not play for CHARLESTON ALLEYCATS. At that time the team was the Charleston WHEELERS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.35.79.109 (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I accidentally removed this (thought I was on a different page), sorry. For convenience of anyone looking at this the article in question is Pokey Reese. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 15:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Charleston Dirty Birds have had past names, including Alleycats and Wheelers. We only have one page and one category for the franchise. It's correct that the wrong team name was listed on the page. This could have been discussed at Talk:Pokey Reese rather than here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Requesting eyes on Chris Langham
Chris Langham is a well known actor and comedy writer with a long career. He also, in 2007, spent 3 months in prison for downloading indecent images of children. This makes the BLP tricky, but right now there is a new editor on the page who is warring to remove mention that the conviction was for downloading images, insisting on only retaining the legal term "making indecent images" without explanation. Sources generally have "downloading", including an excellent secondary source I added today to replace the primary sourcing (most of which also says "downloading", although one has "making" in an article that also says downloading). Making, in this context, means making a copy on a computer - i.e. downloading. The editor's initial edsum indicates they think that using "downloading" is trying to defend the subject, so I don't think this is being approached neutrally. Every attempt I have made to reformulate, add sources, or rewrite with new secondary sources has been reverted. Also my removal of BLPPRIMARY violating opinion has been reverted. The article is largely sourced to primary sources. I marked that up some months ago, but never fixed it. It really could do with editors experienced in BLPs to go through and make it more neutral. Clearly we don't want to gloss over the conviction, but neither should this read like salacious news reporting. It is still a BLP and not a BLP1E. NPOV still applies. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The trouble with "making indecent images" is that it is a non-intuitive phrase peculiar to UK law. It should probably never be used in Wikivoice (and if it is, explained). Bon courage (talk) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my thoughts too. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The text in question should be in plain English, not legalese. JFHJr (㊟) 05:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Alexander_Greba
Alexander Greba The biography section of this article does not provide any sources; With the exception of the length of the subjects prison sentence. The linguistic characteristics suggest that the origin of the article is not a person who understands the English language. The talk page sates that part of the article was translated from the Russian Wikipedia page but it is not reasonable for contemporary translation software to lack proficiency to such a severe degree. The information provided sounds as though it was either; made up, or learnt from gossip. The entire biography needs to be deleted or rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.64.26.213 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Renaud Camus
Renaud Camus This page, and particularly its first paragraph, is gross libel. The first paragraph states: Renaud Camus (/kæˈmuː/; French: [ʁəno kamy]; born Jean Renaud Gabriel Camus on 10 August 1946) is a French novelist, conspiracy theorist, and white nationalist writer. He is the inventor of the "Great Replacement", a far-right conspiracy theory that claims that a "global elite" is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples. In order: 1. Renaud Camus is a French novelist, yes, but to call him such in the very first sentence of his biography is misleading; Camus has written over 150 books in his career, nine of them have been novels. It would be much truer to simply refer to him as a "writer," which is what he is. 2. Despite rumors to the contrary, rumors very much encouraged by this entry, Renaud Camus is not a "conspiracy theorist." Neither in his book Le Grand Remplacement (2011) nor in subsequent works does Camus present anything recognizable as a conspiracy theory. Camus has long maintained that the "Great Replacement" itself is merely his name for the rapid demographic transformation of Western societies brought about by mass immigration (a phenomenon that is, in itself, in no way a matter of dispute). A reading of the original text of his 2007 speech of the same name, the transcript of which was republished in Le Grand Remplacement, gives that book its title, and may now for the first time be read in authorized English translation (cf. Enemy of the Disaster, Vauban Books, 2003), bears this out. In that text, Camus mentions the possibility that the Great Replacement may be the result of a deliberate plan only once, and then only to immediately dismiss it. In his later work and, in particular, La Dépossession(2018), Camus does develop a theory to account for the Great Replacement, centered on what he calls "global replacism". But this theory is also not a conspiracy theory. At the most general level, it is a critique of the tendency of post-industrial capitalism to extend market logic to the governance of human beings, which it sees as little more than fungible commodities. This is not a "plot" but rather, in Camus' words, "pure tropism" and "the spirit of our times". 3. Camus is in no sense a "white nationalist". Camus is a critic of mass immigration; he is not an opponent of immigration per se and nowhere claims immigrants from elsewhere, of whatever race or nationality, cannot (or should not) become French. Indeed, he explicitly says the contrary. Instead, he is a proponent of relative demographic continuity, which he sees as a necessary condition for the preservation of cultural particularity at the national level. To the degree that mass immigration disrupts this continuity, he opposes it. 4. Yes, Camus is the inventor of the phrase the "Great Replacement". No, the "Great Replacement" is not a "conspiracy theory", much less a "far-right" one (even if some on the far right have appropriated the term for their own uses). See point 2. above. 5. Camus does not attribute the "Great Replacement" to the machinations of a "global elite", a term that moreover never occurs in his writing. Instead, he speaks of "Davocracy", referring, once again, to the phenomenon of market-driven, neoliberal technocracy, which he believes to be responsible for encouraging mass migration to Europe. There is no "collusion", on his view, all of this is happening right in the open. Nor are the stakes essentially racial: Camus believes that it is the search for profit that is enabling mass immigration to Europe; that the immigrants are black and brown and the historic host population white is merely an accident of this historical conjuncture. The immigration flow could reverse direction, with whites mass emigrating to historically black and brown countries, without essentially changing the phenomenon. Not only does global replacism not care about race, it is, on his view, essentially hostile to it, seeing it as an impediment to human fungibility and thus market efficiency. The remainder of the entry is similarly problematic, containing multiple errors, half-truths, and omissions. In correcting it, it is hard to know where to begin. The only responsible course of action, in my view, is to rewrite it from scratch, updating its claims with the most recent available literature and avoiding the sort of tendentious and motivated presentation that so mars its first paragraph. Failing to properly edit may well invite legal action. I will be glad to supply additional material to substantiate each of the above claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vauban Books (talk • contribs) 20:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Greetings. Thank you for this wall of text. Please consider raising these points at the article's talk page, Talk:Renaud Camus. Some points you raise here have been discussed at that forum previously. Please consider making a more concise, condensed post there. I do not see any reason to bring this content discussion here, since the talk page and interested editors are evidently available for you to try to form the consensus you'd like to see. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Could editors please comment on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. TFD (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Dan Keen
Eyes would be appreciated and are needed on this article. The creation of the article in itself seems to be very suspect and this one is really convoluted because it’s difficult to tell if the guy even exists. There is a Wired article that claims that a “Dan Keen” owns a company called Registered Agents Inc (RAI) which owns a company called Epik which has its own article. It is strange to me that Epik is (according to the article and press release) is a subsidiary of a company that doesn’t even have an article, but in any case, in the Wired article source, the company denies Wired’s allegations that “Dan Keen” is an owner or employee of either company, yet this was not mentioned in the article by the author. Further confusing things the crux of the cited article is that RAI allegedly uses fake names and fake personas in the business of the company. I suspect (but cannot prove) that “Dan Keen” may be another of these fake personas/names. The webpage for the individual on the page goes to the RAI company which it isn’t clear if Keen actually owns. If Keen does exist, and doesn’t own the company, it could potentially be libelous as the article alleges neo Nazi ties based on RAI’s acquisition of Epik which apparently has a sordid history of hosting undesirable websites or being a registrar for their domains. Whether or not it still does, I can’t say, however the Epik wiki article mentions that it is the registrar for “Bitchute”, but I checked the Whois and the registrar is actually CloudFlare, so this is a false statement in the article. I didn’t check the other domains the article claims that Epik hosts, but I’m guessing those are incorrect as well. I have not made any edits related to the false statements on the page because I’m hoping someone sees what I’m seeing. It really appears to be a hit piece, but I can’t figure if its a hit piece even on a real person. Also, I’m thinking that the notability of Keen seems only to be his alleged connection to RAI and Epik, so why does he have his own article? Shouldn’t this be merged into either the Epik — or an RAI article? It seems that this is essentially an RAI article anyway since it lists RAI’s website as Keen’s personal website which is another factual error in this article. So I’m hoping other eyes are maybe seeing what I’m seeing, or can provide more solid sources about Keen. If the guy exists, he is apparently a ghost.Dougieb (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why there needs to be a standalone article of Keen outside of Epik. The cited sources write about him in relation to that company. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. That is why it is suspect. And the two editors trying to create consensus seem to have an agenda on this.Dougieb (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Taylor Swift, Beyoncé and Jay-Z
I’m writing on this noticeboard as I have noticed a wider issue on some articles about living people, and I think it needs to be addressed as a Wikipedia-wide issue, not just on the individual talk pages when this happens as a whack-a-mole, because it affects the security of living individuals.

Beyoncé and Jay-Z are two of the most high profile individuals, and their address is the title of the article about their home. I think it should be moved to ‘Beyoncé and Jay-Z’s California mansion’, or some variant of that, with all reference to its exact location removed.

The article about one of Taylor Swift’s homes, High Watch, contains the building’s address, its coordinates, and a map. But confusingly, the article also says “Several stalking, trespassing, and home invasion incidents have been reported at the house since Swift's purchase.” acknowledging that the house is a target. So it seems very irresponsible to have its address and the geographical coordinates on it. And so does the article about one of Swift’s other private residences, Samuel Goldwyn Estate. Furthermore, it is well reported in the media that Swift herself sees this as an issue. For example, she requests her planes are hidden from live flight data trackers, and has demanded that Jack Sweeney stops aggregating her flight data, with her attorney saying it’s “stalking and harassing behaviour”.

Bill Gates’s house has the same issues as above.

The buildings are not notable in their own right, and have only gained notoriety because of the people that own it. None of these articles were created before those notable people moved in. I fail to see how having the exact location data on living peoples private residences enriches the encyclopedic content of those articles. I don’t think the articles should be deleted, as they have since become notable, just the exact location data removed.

They live there as private individuals, not as public figures. Is having the address/map location/coordinates so easily available responsible?

The difference is homes like Mar-a-Lago and Buckingham Palace are notable in their own right and can be visited by the public, and were notable before the owners moved in. I think Wikipedia needs to set in stone some clear and written policy about this. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)


 * You're about to discover the exact same thing Barbra Streisand did when she asked geological researchers to remove images of her waterfront home from their project. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 17:33, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the Streisand effect, which could be why these notable people haven’t requested the data to be removed and why I’ve come to the Wikipedia back-office noticeboard first. I think there should be some written Wikipedia policy about the inclusion of location data of private residences of notable people. And also, should this data be removed, it should also be removed from all of the page history versions, eliminating the Streisand effect inadvertently happening. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the Streisand effect. Eliminating it from Wikipedia does not eliminate it from the millions of other websites that must have and it definitely won't stop other websites give the address if it does blow up. (I find it unlikely anyone will care, but the point remains, the Streisand effect works because what others do, not what the original website does other than as it may cause the others to care.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How is 27712 Pacific Coast Highway notable, even? The coverage is pretty WP:ROUTINE. Maybe in 50 years it will be a "historic" house, but it isn't today. BD2412  T 18:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m speaking specifically to the ethics of Wikipedia and its BLP policy- regardless of what other websites do. For example, Wikipedia doesn’t include the birth names of transgender people if they were not notable under that name, even if that name may be well reported elsewhere. So I think a similar simple rule should be written into Wikipedia BLP policy: If the residence wasn’t notable before the notable living person moved in and isn’t open to the public, don’t include exact location information. It should also be noted that those other websites sometimes get the location information directly from Wikipedia, and deem it acceptable to also publish that data merely because Wikipedia does so too. TheSpacebook (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I rather like your idea for improving BLP policy. But this isn't really the forum where guidelines and policies get changed. That starts on the guideline discussion page. Try an WP:RFC there? Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 19:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Let’s move the discussion to here: Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons TheSpacebook (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

John G. Stackhouse, Jr.
John G. Stackhouse, Jr. Stackhouse is currently suing Crandall University for wrongful dismissal, defamation, privacy breaches and other claims by publicizing the alleged findings of an investigation into anonymous complaints at Crandall of professional misconduct. Crandall University and CBC sensationalized his termination, which he is disputing in the first place. Wikiuser: Discospinster continues to try and use sensationalized tabloid style journalism as citations for libellous and potentially libellous statements that are currently being litigated.

The inline citations being used themselves are potentially libellous and the tone of the article is not neutral but negative. Additionally the weight and significance given to his termination and the surrounding media blitz that Crandall orchestrated around his termination, are disproptionate to what they should be.

Additionally, the lead on his page continues to state he was fired for sexual harassment, giving his termination too much emphasis and significance, especially considering he is suing them for wrongful dismissal and defamation amongst other things.

Additionally, prior to Crandall University's violations of Stackhouse's privacy rights, his personal life about his marriage and children were not included on his wikipedia page. Only information about his academic work, since November 2023 users keep trying to add information about his private life, marriage and divorce that is irrelevant to his work as a Canadian Scholar and further violations of his and his family's private lives.
 * The information under dispute is relevant to a biography of a living person and reliably source to news organizations such as CTV News and the CBC, not tabloids. Furthermore, the information about his spouse is sourced to his own webpage (while the posts in question have been removed, the Wayback Machine has archived copies). ... disco spinster   talk  20:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * As long as it didn't rise to the level of being a criminal matter, the dismissal and lawsuit are definitely relevant to the subject's bio, but, as with most spouses and non-notable family members, the names of his wives should not be included per WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLPPRIVACY. Especially if the source is the subject's own website that he has subsequently removed. Private individuals have the right to keep their privacy, and simply replacing the names with the word "wife" won't alter the reader's understanding one bit. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sources have been removed to protect the rights of privacy and safety of living persons. My concern was not that the dismissal and lawsuits were not relevant to the subjects bio, I didn't try to remove them. I said in my changes that the current wording in the descriptions and headers were all negative in tone and cherrypicks inflammatory language from the cited articles towards the subject, especially considering the sensitive nature of the allegations and that the subject is denying the claims of his employer and suing them. Naomi2015 (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Stackhouse falls under WP:NPF and his article should only include "material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources", not items that an editor thinks is important from the subject's own blog. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are complaining about a version of the article, it would be helpful if you provided a link to it. TFD (talk) 23:11, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The diff link is there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The poster wrote, "The inline citations being used themselves are potentially libellous and the tone of the article is not neutral but negative. Additionally the weight and significance given to his termination and the surrounding media blitz,,,," I assumed they were referring to more than one difference. TFD (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to make updates and edits in multiple places around the sexual harassment controversy and current litigation, but they were all reverted back.
 * I tried also to remove private information and his marriages and divorce, some of which had citations that didn't actually support the statements on the wikipedia page. Such as saying the subject divorced his wife. There is nothing on his blog or anywhere that states what went on in his first marriage and who divorced who, but that too was reverted back by discospinster, who threatened me I would be blocked for not giving explanations for edits, but I had given explanations for edits and only removed citations that didn't support what was being claimed and were irrelevant to anything else, and said so.
 * Additionally, the CBC articles consists of an interviewee who is an alleged complainant where she says she started an instagram account targeting the subject. While the investigators report, libellously published by the former employer, states that there were no previous allegations or complaints against him. The CBC article is biased as it leaves all this out and more and leans heavily on the opinions of an alleged complainant who never filed any previous complaints but went to social media and news media to cybersmear the subject.
 * Additionally, the above mentioned instagram account named itself "Truth Tellers" and one of the first wikipedia editors to add about the termination and the sexual harassment allegations, named themselves "TheTruthWins77" and it was only about 12 hours after Crandall's publication. It's more of the same, they are now using the subjects wikipedia page, and the editors are insisting on a certain narrative about the events. In that same vein, it's notably nothing is on Crandall's wikipedia page and they were the ones that went public with it all, it's only this subjects wikipedia page. Naomi2015 (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried to make the revisions on March 29, 2024, they were reverted back almost immediately. Naomi2015 (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This article needs to be extensively rewritten since everything outside of the controversy is unsourced and makes the article look like a CV Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with all that. You're right, it looks like the article was created in 2007, and remained entirely unsourced until last year when this incident made the news. It grew substantially in size over the years, but only the subject or someone very close to the subject could have known all that without any sources. A prime example of WP:ABOUTME. In my opinion, the total lack of reliable, independent sources shouldn't pass notability guidelines, but then again I've always thought NPROF was far too lax on that sort of thing so I'm not sure how it would fare at AFD. If we excise everything unsourced, we're left only with the allegations and lawsuit, making it a BLP1E thing, and that wouldn't be fair either. Zaereth (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is no surprise this sort of situation would arise out of the circle jerk of WP:NPROF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was a bit skeptical that the subject here passes WP:NPROF -- it is a very low citation field, I don't think Christianity Today is an academic journal, and the academic leadership roles are far short of president of the university. He did however apparently hold named professorships, which may pass WP:NPROF C5, if they could be supported with sources.  But indeed, in a field like theology, it is more frequent that academics pass WP:NAUTHOR.  The latter guideline looks likely to me (with a large number of books, at least some from reputable publishers).  It would generally require reviews of his books, which are not currently in the article, but my very cursory search suggests that reviews exist. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * First, the article was indeed sourced: biographical sketches in both the Bob Harvey profile and the annually updated reference work Canadian Who's Who. Not every single fact in a bio needs a separate citation, and those two sources cover most of the material here. (A quick Google search turns up lots of reviews of the author's books, for instance.)
 * Second, the author meets both NPROF and NAUTHOR criteria, having held named professorships (twice), being named to Canadian Who's Who (a rare honour in Canada), having published more than a dozen books in several fields (including more than half-a-dozen with the Oxford University Press), and having sound h-index and i-index scores for his (humanities) disciplines. But he may well qualify as WP:NPF.
 * Third, the article does read like a CV. Most articles about scholars do, however, being concerned with public facts. So a rewrite isn't necessary—or even easily imaginable.
 * Fourth, the main problem here is contributors pumping up the scandal quotient for a case that is being disputed in the courts regarding a person of relatively low public interest. Wikipedia should be scrupulously neutral, and perhaps the current controversy should be left out until it is resolved. SergeS18 (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with what User:SergeS18 just said. And just leave it out. It isn't required to meet GNG, and it doesn't touch directly on notability. It's an extrinsic event. JFHJr (㊟) 22:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's relevant to his career, and cited to major Canadian news organizations. Trimming it down is one thing, but there's no need to remove all mention of it. ... disco spinster   talk  23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The very facts of the matter are in dispute: that's what the lawsuits mean. Wikipedia is not about "he says/she says," but about what is properly evidenced.
 * Discospinster keeps citing "major Canadian news organizations," but only the CBC has independently reported on this issue, and the CBC is being sued by Dr. Stackhouse for defamation. To put up on Wikipedia a highly incendiary matter--career-ending stuff--that is being litigated seems...precipitous. Better to leave this matter off Wikipedia until it is definitively settled, no?
 * WP:NPF says, "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care; in many jurisdictions, repeating a defamatory claim is actionable, and there are additional protections for subjects who are not public figures."
 * And even on public figures, WP says, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." There are NOT multiple, reliable third-party sources documenting several of these allegations—such as "who divorced whom," whether the Regent College investigation, if there was one, was in fact over sexual harassment, and so on.
 * Frankly, this is a mess of gossip, speculation, and, one hopes, some actual factual reporting. It's not ready for a Wikipedia bio page of a living person. SergeS18 (talk) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also been reported on by Christianity Today, The Christian Post , and Global News . He was fired, that is not in dispute. Should the article mention the reason for his firing, or should we leave that up to the reader's imagination? ... disco spinster   talk  01:14, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not yet shown to be relevant to his career as they're currently in civil litigation and the page should be protected as being a biography of a living person or NPROF. The CBC articles cited do not look like they can be used as reliable third parties, they look suspicious, like they were tipped off ahead of time, the whole thing looks suspicious. CBC's first story, that's cited as a "source" for the wikipedia editors, aired at 5:00 am the morning following of Crandall's late night publication. Naomi2015 (talk) 00:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Winton, Queensland
This edit has names and addresses of people and makes allegations about them. I think it needs to be redacted. Thanks Kerry (talk) 02:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The whole essay has now been redacted as WP:TALKOFFTOPIC Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposed expansion of WP:BLPGOSSIP
See Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 15:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Carla Martin
This entry is entirely libellous against a private citizen for the sole purpose of smearing her professionally to prevent her from securing valuable doc review projects. There is no relevance to the general public. 2600:1700:14D0:C1C0:94E1:5399:235F:84A4 (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed all assertions that were only supported by WP:BLPPRIMARY sources. She seems to be a notable attorney due to her cases but every aspect of her alleged missteps was not supported by secondary sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Charles Banner, Baron Banner
Charles has been deleting his personal life section whilst it is very relevant for people to know what kind of person has been selected into the House of Lords and is going to be making laws on everyone’s behalf. Charles has been deleting this section of Wikipedia because he does not want the truth about his personal life to be known. Everything that was put in that section is factually correct and can be proven. The page should be unlocked and the edit including his Personal Life to be allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:DCED:9000:8134:940F:5487:4EA6 (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As all of your edits have been repeatedly reverted and deleted for violations of the WP:BLP policy, the article should not be unprotected at this time. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ed Piskor
Unreliable sources  are reporting that Piskor may have committed suicide. It might be advisable for his article to be monitored until these rumours are either confirmed or refuted. Tevildo (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The page is now protected, which should at least reduce the unsourced claims being placed there. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * "Obits: Ed Piskor, ‘Hip Hop Family Tree’ Comic Book Artist, Dies at 41. He died by an apparent suicide following allegations of sexually inappropriate behavior"


 * Source: https://www.thewrap.com/ed-piskor-dies-suicide-hip-hop-family-tree-artist/ --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Suspected bias on Joseph Edelman's page
My fellow editors and BLP reviewers, Aquillion, Armadillopteryx, Atsme, Bastun, Bilorv, Bobfrombrockley, Buidhe, Chipmunkdavis, Crossroads, David_Gerard, Dmehus, Edwardx, Guy Macon, Hemiauchenia, Historyday01, Jayron32, Jimbo Wales, JzG, Masem, Muboshgu, My_very_best_wishes, Neutrality, NorthBySouthBaranof, QEDK, ReconditeRodent, Rhododendrites, Sceptre, Seraphimblade, Slatersteven, Spy-cicle, Symmachus_Auxiliarus, Thenightaway, XavierItzm.

I would like to bring to your attention a concerning issue regarding the Edelman Family Foundation section in the Wikipedia article on Joseph Edelman. Currently, the section focuses solely on the foundation's support of the DO NOT HARM organization, which presents a biased and unbalanced view of the foundation's activities. According to the reliable source, ProPublica, the Edelman Family Foundation has been active since at least 2011 and has made overall donations of over $8 million. The foundation's assets exceed $100 million, indicating its significant financial capacity and broad scope of activities.

However, the current "Edelman Family Foundation" section fails to provide a comprehensive and neutral overview of the foundation's donations and initiatives. When I tried to include information about other organizations supported by the foundation, such as the $400,000 donation to the University of California, San Diego, for students facing mental health challenges, the information was quickly removed by several editors.

For example, here is the text suggested about the donation to the UC San Diego:

In 2015, Joseph E. Edelman pledged $400,000 to support the university's student mental health program. The donation provided operational support for UC San Diego's mental health services, and aimed to address the mental health needs of the university's over 30,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Edelman's gift also supported specialized fellowship training and clinical research in college mental health.

The source we can use (it already appears as reference #7): link

Here is another text that was removed:

The foundation has contributed to the American Jewish Committee, Brown University, Cato Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, PragerU, Ralston College, Shoes That Fit, and Team Rubicon, among others.

Surprisingly, it was removed by XeCyranium and then by NatGertler as contentious and based on primary source. However, ProPublica is a reliable source and all I did was listing the same contributions without adding any contentious information or interpreting, so these accusations do not make any sense.

Now I suggest:

The foundation has contributed to a number of nonprofits and educational institutions including the the New York Genome Center, American Jewish Committee, Brown University, Cato Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, PragerU and Ralston College, among others.

This selective inclusion of information raises concerns about bias and the violation of Wikipedia's core principle of neutrality (WP:NPOV). By focusing solely on the foundation's support of DO NOT HARM, the section presents a skewed and incomplete picture of the organization's activities.

It is worth noting that Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has also suggested expanding the section to encompass the foundation's activity in full, rather than focusing on a single donation event:

I don't think there's any doubt as to the reliability of the Huffington Post reporting of the fact that the Edelman Family Foundation contributes significantly to the Do Not Harm organizaiton. I also don't see it as a particularly difficult BLP issue - Do No Harm is a 501(c)(3) charity in the United States with a particular worldview and mission.

If I were to critique our biography of Jospeh Edelman, I think I'd be more concern with WP:UNDUE. Forbes says his net worth is $2.5 billion, and this donation was for $1 million. The Edelman Family Foundation has $100 million in assets and appears to give over $8 million a year in grants. It is not at all clear to me why this one donation deserves to be such a large part of a very short biography. However, the usual solution to that would be to see if we can find more sources to create a more well-rounded biography. (Jimbo Wales)

Furthermore, it is important to address the sources used to support the inclusion of DO NOT HARM, namely the Huffington Post (1), appears in the section US politics) and Pink News (2, it is mostly a copy of the Huffington Post and doesn't provide any additional independent opinion. Since Huffpost is already ineligible, it is logical that we can't use the copy of the source) articles. In the 2020 RfC, there was no consensus on HuffPost staff writers' reliability for political topics, and the community considers HuffPost openly biased on American politics (WP:HUFFPOLITICS). Pink News, in particular, has mostly copied its content from the Huffington Post article, also making it an ineligible source.

To ensure a balanced and accurate representation of the Edelman Family Foundation, I propose expanding the section to include information about the foundation's other significant donations, such as:

1. $1,000,000 to the New York Genome Center for genomic research on neurodegenerative disorders (ProPublica, 2023)

2. $800,000 to Brown University for educational research and scholarship funding (ProPublica, 2023)

3. $600,000 to Ralston College to support education (ProPublica, 2023)

4. $500,000 to the UATX Center for Politics, Economics, and Applied History (ProPublica, 2023)

5. $500,000 to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression to promote the FIRE ad campaign (ProPublica, 2023)

6. $400,000 to Prager University to support PragerU personalities and the Big Tech Independence Initiative (ProPublica, 2023)

7. $500,000 to the American Jewish Committee for general operating support (ProPublica, 2023)

I kindly request a broader consensus among editors to address this issue and work towards improving the section's neutrality and completeness as encouraged by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales. Llama Tierna (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I'm pinged, but this looks straightforward. NPOV is about adequately summarizing the best sources on a subject, and Wikipedia prioritizes independent secondary sources over primary sources or those with a connection to the subject. The ProPublica database alone does not provide any WP:WEIGHT. Likewise UCSD publicizing a gift to UCSD. The reason the current claims are included would be because PinkNews, which is an independent secondary source, wrote about it. Looks like HuffPost did too. Now, neither of those are top-shelf quality sources, but a fine starting point. Perhaps, with just [currently] one source supporting the material, it should not have its own section but rather be folded into the section above. If you'd like to challenge the material, you'll have to challenge the PinkNews source, and if you'd like to add more, just find independent reliable sources about the foundation and argue for them to be summarized along with the rest. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this analysis. Historyday01 (talk) 18:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * it is mostly a copy of the Huffington Post and doesn't provide any additional independent opinion - this is, generally, not a valid WP:RS argument. It is expected that a RS will summarize and rely on sources of their own, which do not have to themselves be reliable; in fact, part of the purpose of an RS is to do this. We assume that if they're repeating something or reporting on something, they have verified it or found it reliable enough to stake their reputation on. If anything, this sort of situation goes in the other direction - when dealing with a borderline source like the Huffington Post on politics, WP:USEBYOTHERS can make an individual piece usable. EDIT: Also, regarding the other donations... as I said when writing WP:PHILANTHROPIST, donations generally ought to have secondary sourcing. In particular, describing donations to places like the Cato Institute, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, and PragerU as philanthropy, as you did |here, is certainly WP:OR - that's making a value-judgment as to his intent, which you can't do without a secondary source. Balance is important but pushing in things that have no secondary coverage at all in order to "balance out" things that have significant secondary coverage is WP:FALSEBALANCE, so what you ought to do is look for sources that cover his support for those organizations, which can also guide how we describe or characterize it. As an aside, the Huffington Post source does mention it, but it describes it like this: The Edelman Family Foundation, by contrast, which he founded in 2017, has showered six-figure grants on conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute; Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; the anti-critical race theory Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism; Prager University, which markets right-wing videos as teaching material; and UATX, Bari Weiss’ unaccredited anti-cancel culture university. This would also require attribution and, of course, we would have to maintain their characterization to avoid misusing it as a source - if a source describes grants as being used to advance his politics, it's obviously misusing it to turn around and use that source to describe them as philanthropy or charity. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out to you before, that "ProPublica" source that you are pointing to is the tax filing of the foundation. ProPublica is a reliable source for it being their tax filing; they are not a reliable source for the claims made in the content, which is not a third-party source but a first-party one. The choices you made on which donations to highlight were your choices, not something we deem a reliable source.
 * The good news is that we have a perfectly viable source to discuss their other donations, and that is the Huffington Post source, a source which, despite you bringing it up repeatedly in various fora, you have not found anyone else to show your distaste for in this instance. (As I have pointed out before, "Every single editor but you who has weighed in on the HuffPost and Pink News sources, whether on this talk page, on the Biography Of Living Persons Noticeboard, or on Jimbo's page, has supported their use. Consensus does not require unanimity. It is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK.") HuffPo's statement that the Foundation has stated they've given money to the groups they listed is not controversial; the majority of them can be verified at the ProPublica source, which makes a fine second source in such matters under WP:PRIMARY. The material that can be taken from HuffPo is listed at Talk:Joseph_Edelman. If you are worried about supposed bias, we could attribute it -- "The Huffington Post notes that the Foundation has given money to...", some of that nature. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Attributing to the Huffington Post seems like a good idea, since PinkNews does that itself anyway. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And I see that you've now taken care of that. Good work, thanks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Please note the significant CANVASSING by Llama Tierna at e.g. here and here - by my count LT has posted on 31 user talk pages which the same leading message. GiantSnowman 18:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * And before there's any suggestion that they just dropped a note on the page of everyone who had taken part in the discussion, let me point out that I was dropped no such note on my talk page, and I've taken part in every one of the conversations that I've been aware of; all 31 of those messages were dropped in a 21 minute period that is more than 21 minutes past, so it's not just that I'm next on the list. But yes, the note tries not only to encourage involvement in discussion but tries to argue for a result. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note I also discussed this with Llama Tierna but was not pinged.
 * Additionally, the Huffpost source states the foundation
 * has showered six-figure grants on conservative organizations such as the Cato Institute; Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression; the anti-critical race theory Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism; Prager University, which markets right-wing videos as teaching material; and UATX, Bari Weiss’ unaccredited anti-cancel culture university.
 * previously gave large donations to one liberal organization, the pro-abortion rights Center for Reproductive Rights, but those gifts stopped after 2021. “The Edelman Family Foundation no longer supports the Center for Reproductive Rights because of their adoption of gender ideology,” a spokesman for the foundation told HuffPost.
 * has donated $400,000 to the Manhattan Institute to support, in the foundation’s words, a “gender identity initiative.”
 * and Parents Defending Education, an advocacy group which describes itself as a grassroots network but has close ties to the Koch network of right-wing political donors, received a $200,000 donation from the Edelmans in 2021, the year of its founding.
 * I personally find it a little funny Llama Tierna argues so much against the use of the Huffpost, then argues we should include details covered by the Huffpost cited to a non-RS instead. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * HuffPost and Pink News show that it is due weight to cover Do No Harm prominently and to make some mention of the EFF's numerous donations to right-wing groups, perhaps a couple more of which could be named. UCSD is not independent and has little weight. ProPublica's raw data is reliable and worth citing but marginal in terms of adding weight. Jimbo's opinion is an important one, but not more important than other editors, as Wikipedia works by consensus. Because of this edit (reinstating a tag after consensus and reversion), I've given a warning to Llama Tierna about edit warring (recall that there is no minimum number of edits required for behaviour to be edit warring). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * If people want to donate to support bigotry, it's not really our job to hide it. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My perspective pretty much aligns with Jimmy's. There is also quite a bit of science that supports the do no harm theory which appears to be the position of the advocacy. In summary, the section on the Foundation is poorly written, not neutral, lacks objectivity in the selection of sources, apparently on purpose in order to push a particular POV. The latter may explain why it reads more like shaming from a rather distorted perspective that is not even close to being encyclopedic. –  Atsme 💬 📧 23:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The section makes no judgment on the Do No Harm organization, merely describes it. If you have better sources to use on the Foundation, feel free to put them forth; the selection of sources are largely what third-party sources are available on the Foundation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, Do No Harm (organization) is a WP:FRINGE advocacy group that works with the American College of Pediatricians and supports 1) mandatory misgendering of students in schools 2) criminalization of gender affirming care for minors 3) bans on federal funding for trans healthcare and 4) conversion therapy through euphemisms. The only people who take them seriously are other FRINGE pro-conversion therapy groups like Genspect and SEGM (their resource page is really a laundry list of the most unreliable fringe sources in trans topics).
 * In short there is also quite a bit of science that supports the do no harm theory which appears to be the position of the advocacy is not true. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no science that aligns with opposing anti-racism initiatives or DEI. The fact that trans people are also a target of the culture insurgency is a mere accident: it's too toxic these days to go after their real targets, so the culture insurgents chose a minority that allows them to peel off a subset of the liberals who would normally not be behind their transparently regressive agenda. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * - Here's my two cents. Without commenting on the specifics, I'll give the same advice to the OP as I gave to the founder of Craigslist when he came here with similar concerns. We don't really need a comprehensive list of donations and their amounts. That's just too detailed and doesn't read like an encyclopedia. All we really need is a summary of all this with maybe a few highlights as examples. It not only reads better that way, flows better, but it's also easier for the reader to follow and retain. Listing them all not only breaks the flow and is harder for the reader to remember, but too much can come off like bragging, and therefore tacky, which often has the opposite effect intended. Think about it carefully, because is all that really how you'd like this article to read? I'll admit, when I read it, it seemed like we could use a little more broad of an overview to help fill in some of the gaps, but we also need some secondary sources to get the info from. I hope that helps, but unfortunately I don't have time to get into the specifics. Zaereth (talk) 00:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And if, as here, they are covered by reliable independent sources, we can and likely should include them, especially when they are exceptionally toxic causes. This is not some random donation given in passing. Edelman's money founded the group. It's their largest single donation that year, and accounts for the gourp's entire projected revenue for the year. We can't really sweep that under the rug, even if they are ashamed of it (and there's no indcation they are). Guy (help! - typo?) 09:02, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the question at hand (I feel that I need to do more research before forming an opinion, but I am leaning towards what "The Other Guy" wrote above), I am concerned about the political bias of the sources we are using and would be a lot happier if we found better sources.
 * The section Joseph Edelman is currently sourced to HuffPost, Pink News, and LGBTQ Nation. Can we find sources that don't have such a strong political bias?
 * In my opinion the reliability of Pink News should not be considered here. The Pink News article is a description / close paraphrase of the Huffington Post article  and thus WP:HUFFPOLITICS, applies, not WP:PINKNEWS.
 * Likewise, the LGBTQ Nation article is really an editorial, not a news article, and only mentions Edelman is passing in a sentence that is yet another description of what is in the Huffpost article. Also see Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 391. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have been unable to find significant other sources on it (one caution if you do go for it is that there are other groups that include "Edelman Family Foundation" as part or all of their name, which applies to the only mention of the term one finds in a newspapers.com search, for example.) It is unsurprising that sources that care about anti-trans and other right-wing efforts are the ones to notice the EFF. Even when someone like the OP, who seems to be trying to take away that focus, post donations, they include things not in the HuffPo list like Ralston College, which, like UATX, is an unaccredited right-wing institution (its chancellor is Jordan Peterson.) OP also doesn't note that the donation to Ralston appears to have been undone, as there are separate entries for a $600,000 donation and a -$600,000 one.... which is again a problem with relying directly on primary sources which one may not know how to interpret. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Need additional eyes on Abdullah Öcalan
Some pretty serious violations of WP:NPOV overnight. I've reverted but I would prefer not to edit-war to maintain a stable article here. Suggest additional eyes would be appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Sadhguru
There is an old allegation that Sadhguru murdered his wife (the allegation originated from his wife's father). A user on the talk-page is requesting to put this content on the article. I am not convinced this is being done in good-faith. The allegation is not supported by reliable sourcing and is potentially libellous if we add in what this user is suggesting.

The father of Sadhguru's wife was the only person to make the allegation but it was dismissed by the Coimbatore Police. It is an old allegation from 1997. I have not seen any good WP:RS on this topic. The user on the talk-page is requesting to use this VICE article for the claim he was charged with his wife's murder. I am not convinced we should be using this source on Wikipedia for a controversial claim like this.

See talk-page discussion  Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Horse Eye's comment. That sort of approach is rarely helpful. That said, the Vice article is definitely not usable. It's an op/ed column and not an actual news report. You can easily tell because the author using a persuasive style and giving their own opinions. The article from The Week, on the other hand, looks very well written and neutral on the matter. The article is more about how this was dug up by some politician to use for political reasons than the actual allegations, and if we use that source, we should not simply cherrypick the allegations and ignore all the rest, but summarize the actual points that the article makes.


 * The court document is definitely not usable, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, and should be redacted from the talk page. I cannot read the AsiaNetNews source, so I don't know about it.


 * The big question that relates to BLP policy is one of WP:BLPCRIME. Is this person some kind of celebrity in India? If so, then BLPCRIME wouldn't apply and it would become a matter of RS and NPOV. If not, then BLPCRIME would apply. Just going by the length of his article and the volume of sources, it's possible he would qualify as a public figure, but I don't know enough about him to be sure. So far, we've only got one source that may qualify as RS, and the main point of that source is not the allegations themselves but what they were being used for, so that doesn't give it much if any weight. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sadhguru is undoubtedly a well known public figure in India. That said, this particular Vice article is a very weak source and I don't think this allegation should be included unless better sources are found. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hunt
A consensus has emerged to devote more than 20% of the article on the Nobel laureate Tim Hunt to an allegation that, after five decades of distinguished service to science, he inadvertently said something sexist during a three-minute impromptu toast in 2015. This is a substantial expansion of the previous account of the event; for the past five years, it has taken up less than 5% of the article. Since the allegation led to an intense online shaming campaign that upended Hunt's life, I believe that the expansion violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Wikipedia has decided to permanently enshrine other people's recollections (and interpretations) of the most illconsidered thing an otherwise completely uncontroversial scientist may (or may not) ever have said.
 * Previous version:
 * Current consensus:

The expansion is also counter to the guidance provided by User:S Marshall about WP:PROPORTION when he closed the RfC on the subject.

For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this, I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.--Thomas B (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Update (March 29): While I think it has been made largely in good faith, the current version is factually incorrect in subtle ways that only people familiar with the case (not just a few selected sources) appear to understand. It says, in effect, that Hunt said (it literally asserts that "Hunt said...") something that offended a lot of people; the fact is that Hunt was accused of saying something offensive. It is not clear from (the balance of) the sources that his original remarks actually offended anyone, only that a version of his remarks, which was designed to shame him on social media, caused a public outcry. (Even his accusers claim it didn't bother them; they were just embarrassed for Hunt and offended on behalf of women in science.) Leaving this wrong impression in his BLP, is simply unfair to Hunt.--Thomas B (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note this is being discussed at WP:ANI. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's my view that there was consensus for the expansion, and therefore the solution is to expand the sections on Sir Tim's scientific achievements. In particular the discovery of cyclin that earned him a share in a Nobel Prize. This can be achieved by reading sources and writing content, which is what we're all here to do. Nothing about the situation necessitates posting long screeds on noticeboards.—S Marshall T/C 08:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: Is the current version (no significant expansion on his scientific achievements and a 600% expansion on the controversy) what you had in mind? As I read your close, the right way forward would have been to leave the short version in place for now and begin to expand the rest of the article. When it reaches about 5000 words, there will be room for 250 words about the controversy, tempered by 250 words about his documentable views on women in science, which are altogether positive, the controversy notwithstanding. I would have no objections to that. Thomas B (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I said that WP:PROPORTION should be respected and this could be achieved by expanding the other parts of the article. I did not say that the controversy section is capped at 5% of the article.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There is probably more peer-reviewed scholarship discussing the 'sexism' episode than discussing Hunt's science achievements. Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But that shouldn't matter, should it? You decide how much coverage to give something by reading the sources, not by putting them in piles and seeing which pile is highest.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not a word count thing; coverage in high-quality sources (e.g. WP:SCHOLARSHIP counts most, natch. NPOV is best achieved by leaning on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's the right way to follow NPOV in this particular sitution. Unfortunately, 20-odd years after Wikipeia's founding, WP:EDITORIALJUDGEMENT is still a redlink, but where one reliable source says he won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Biology for helping us understand how the cell cycle works, and another reliable source says he's a rotten misogynist because of something he said at a conference in 2015, I don't think our reaction should be to try to work out which source is "best".—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm also very baffled by Bon's suggestion. The original 1983 article in Cell about the discovery of cyclin alone has over 1200 citations in the scientific literature. Thomas B (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * An approximately zero of those will be relevant to TH's biography. So for example, I looked at the first 'cited by' article in Pubmed, 38140403, and the 1983 paper is citedonly to support the claim "CYCB1;1 is synthesised during the G2 phase, peaks during the prometaphase, and disappears at early anaphase". Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The relevant biographical information is that Sir Tim's 1983 paper is widely cited in scientific literature.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, and Evans et al. (1983) has been referred to as a seminal research paper. But researchers into proteins cite the paper to discuss cyclin, not discuss the person who discovered it. And that doesn't generate much usable biographical sourcing for us. (There are a few exceptions, like 18662532, which is already cited on Wikipedia.) Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find that the scholarship on the controversy says very little about Hunt and much more about sexism in science generally, social shaming, etc. This is one the things some of us have been saying: it's not about Hunt at all. Thomas B (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite a lot is about the whole context. Bon courage (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The main problwm I have with the earlier status quo ("previous version") is that it puts the "online shaming" in wikivoice, which is not the way I think the RS on the "shaming" and the backlash to it ought to be read, re: WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problems with the earlier version were what got this whole drama going in the first place. It really shouldn't require further discussion. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on my recent efforts to catch up with this drama, you appear to be right. Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One sub-sub-section that takes up less screen estate than the "Awards and honors" section hardly seems disproportionate. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thomas, do you realize why it's problematic for you to bring changes in an article you've been page-banned from to a noticeboard? Especially when those consensus were the direct result of a well-attended RFC? Loki (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine. Thomas B (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I was not saying it was against the rules, per se. That doesn't make it "perfectly fine". It's quite clear evidence of heavily tendentious editing and a total inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Loki (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have concerns about the proposed solution in the RfC to expand the other sections given WP:BLPBALANCE. Who's going to do it? Are they going to do it? It is not "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape". The weight of this biography should be pointed towards peer-reviewed books and journals not news sites like WP:DAILYBEAST. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * With good reason,, it seems that the group seeking to expand this section don't feel it is necessary. WCM email 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Firetangledfeathers has stripped down the controversy section to about as minimal as it can get really. I've spent time expanding the cyclins section, but the blunt truth is that basically no detailed biographical accounts of Hunt other than his Nobel prize autobiography exist, and I am unsure how appopriate it is to lean on that account to expand the article, given its lack of independence from Hunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Books and articles about the impact of his work and how he got there are more critical to his biography than random items about what he did throughout his life. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As usual, we follow the sources, and there's quite a lot of sources about this particular controversy. The RFC close was to follow WP:PROPORTION but I'm frankly not convinced that's meaningful here or that expanding the rest of the article follows. As far as I can tell, if we were to just go by quantity of reliable sources about each subtopic, the controversy section would be significantly longer. Loki (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Basically, should Wikipedia be mansplaining to readers that the sexism stuff is NBD so "look over there!" at the science (despite the balance of sourcing). Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the question I'm asking editors to consider is: How big a deal is Tim Hunt's sexism? My reading of the sources says, precisely, that it's not big. The big deal that he was made to symbolize was sexism in science. Since it has been decided to make a big deal out of his toast in his biography (not just in articles on sexism in science or social shaming), it is our obligation (to both Hunt and the readers of WP) to clarify that he is highly respected among his colleagues (of all genders) and nobody who knows him thinks he is a chauvinist. There are plenty of sources that say this. Thomas B (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That is simply untrue. Sometime colleague David Colquhoun was for example scathing. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The two men did not know each other (just worked at the same institution). And Colquhoun's evidence was risible. But it's clarifying that you actually think it is "simply untrue" that Hunt is not a sexist. That's also the impression I get from many of the people who are pushing for the expansion: they want to paint Hunt as a sexist. I don't. And I hope someone will eventually see that doing so is in fact a violation of WP:BLP given the facts and sources available to us. Thomas B (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you're twisting my words now as everybody will see. Look, you've been busted on this and your dodgy campaign, on- and off-wiki, has hit the buffers. The matter is settled and it's time to move on. Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in debating. I'm only saying what my impressions are and what my goals are with this posting to the noticeboard. If it's so obvious that I'm twisting your words, I hope anyone will read us both charitably enough not make this more dramatic than need be. I really wish you well and hope thing go well with the article (it has already improved since I posted). I'm in no position to disrupt anything. Cheers. Thomas B (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BESTSOURCES > WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The perennial problem with this article is that the reporting in Wikipedia's voice isn't presenting a neutral summary of what happened. There is a disconnect between what actually happened and what was reported to have happened. The controversy arose not because the remarks were sexist, its because the remarks were taken out of context, then embellished with statements that were simply untrue. At the moment what is in the article is in conflict with our WP:BLP policy because it doesn't reflect accurately what the individual's actions were but mixes the fake news reporting and any attempt to address this is being reverted. Further, if you tag for neutrality, the tags are removed and outside commentary deterred by what is a toxic editing environment. WCM email 12:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes. Biographical facts: Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life. WP's BLP: Hunt said he had "trouble with girls" in the lab and people got mad. Thomas B (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have reliable sources for, Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life? This appears to be something you strongly believe, but I haven't seen sourcing that is both relevant to and supportive of that claim. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Fiona Fox chapter is probably the most comprehensive source for that. I mentioned it on the talk page . Which part of the claim do you think it doesn't support? Thomas B (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At least as paraphrased in the review, this source does not appear to support falsely accused. Newimpartial (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which part do you think is wrong: "falsely" or "accused"? Fiona Fox documents both that he was accused of being a sexist and that he is not a sexist. Thomas B (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fox's book supports Hunt was accused of sexism but does not clearly support Hunt is not sexist - at least, not going by the account presented in the review. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "[Female scientists who knew him] insisted that he was not sexist." That's quoted in the review. The chapter brings together such testimony and behavioral evidence and absence of evidence. Not sure what more you'd want. Thomas B (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Fox reports that scientists who knew Hunt insisted that he was not sexist. That is very different from sourcing in Fox's own voice that he is not sexist (which in turn, in the presence of competing RS statments, would still fall below the threshold for Wikipedia to state in its own voice that Hunt "is not sexist").
 * In the current article version - and all recent versions that I checked - no statement is made, in Wikivoice or otherwise, about Hunt being or not being sexist. The only reference I see in the current version is to the perceived sexist nature of the 2015 remarks. In this context, treating the claim that "Hunt is not sexist" as, in your words, a "biographical fact" is unsupported by RS and it would be a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV to include such a statement in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you read Fox's chapter? Thomas B (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No; I have only read the review that you linked as evidence in the prior discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I guess that's par for the course. You didn't even read Zanahary's quotations immediately after? It's been a while, but I don't think I can do much better to convince you that Fox makes a convincing case that Hunt is not a sexist. Literally no one who has ever worked with him says he is, on the contrary, they say he's not. She did a pretty thorough job. Thomas B (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Consider: it's been almost a decade since Hunt was accused of (and widely shamed for) being a "sexist scientist". What evidence exists today that he has ever hindered a female scientist in her career? Literally, none. Thomas B (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We've been over this, but let's circle back:
 * The important question regarding this controversy is not whether Hunt is or is not in his heart a sexist. It's not really even whether his prior behavior is sexist. The controversy is about a particular comment at a particular conference.
 * I also would oppose a statement in Wikivoice saying "Tim Hunt is sexist", but you'll notice that the current version does not say that or anything like that. What it says is that Parts of the remarks were widely publicised on social media due to their perceived sexist nature. It's easily sourceable that the comments were perceived as sexist, so that's what we get to say in Wikivoice.
 * If female colleagues of Tim Hunt say he wasn't a sexist, that's only relevant to the article insofar as the sources think it's relevant. Because that section of the article is about a particular event and not about trying to look inside Hunt's heart or pick over every decision he's made in his life, it's not obviously or directly relevant. Loki (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Thomas. I can see you are having a lot of difficulties convincing people here, so I'm going to offer some advice in the hopes it will help. The reason you're not convincing anyone is because your arguments are logically flawed. For example, your comment directly above is a logically fallacy called appeal to ignorance, which is why it fails to convince anyone. Likewise, your main argument here is based on a false premise, that "sexist" is a thing that someone either is or isn't. It's not. It's an opinion that others either have or they don't. Unfortunately for the subject, the price of fame is getting judged by the world, and Wikipedia notes significant opinions their words or actions incur, whether those are good or bad.


 * Now, assuming for argument's sake that his remarks were indeed meant to be a joke, that's why jokes are better left to comedians, because even with the best of intentions it's very easy to fall flat on your face, and things like that can stick around for the rest of one's life, especially if they're notable and generated a lot of public backlash. I don't foresee this as ever being something that will just go away, but the article, as currently written, looks to me to be very neutral and fair about it all. It doesn't make the false conclusion that he is a sexist, just that his remarks were seen as sexist by some yet not by others, which seems perfectly fine and balanced to me. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that "Hunt is not sexist" beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.
 * I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content, which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the straw goat question whether Hunt has "hindered any female scientist in her career" - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.
 * Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the WP:BALANCE of WP:HQRS, and the current article appears to so so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Loki, Zaereth, and Newimpartial, I am not suggesting we should say Hunt isn't a sexist. I'm suggesting we should not devote so much space to the baseless accusation that he is. It is an opinion about him that is being given WP:UNDUE weight in a WP:BLP. Thomas B (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I realise this is futile but what is in the article doesn't conform with our BLP policies.
 * The article as currently written doesn't reflect what sources have to say about Tim Hunt. Were it to do so, it would note that the prevailing view in the literature, is that he was joking, he isn't sexist and much of the furore whipped up at the time relied on quoting him out of context and a series of untrue statements (part of a "wider problem of trial by social media").  The furore wasn't over what he said, though he recognises that his remarks were ill-advised, the furore was over what he was reported as saying.  And that distinction is critical for a WP:BLP and IT IS EASILY SOURCEABLE.
 * Were the article written to WP:BLP standards, it would put the purported quote into context, that it isn't a verbatim transcript but the recollection of an anonymous EU official written two weeks later. Its acknowledged as flawed, since for example it doesn't include the recollection of Nadia Demina that Hunt followed his single sex labs joke, with a further quip that labs would be the worse for being a single sex environment.  It was also leaked to the media, it was not intended for publication.  If you want to include this "quote" you need to acknowledge it is not a verbatim record of what was said.
 * Sourced from the same anonymous official the article would also include that his speech was well received by his hosts and not met with a stony silence as was originally claimed. One of his hosts commenting how impressed she was that “Sir Tim could improvise such a warm and funny speech” at such short notice. Oh and he didn't as the article implies stand up and give an impromptu toast of his own volition, he was asked at short notice by his hosts.
 * If we write to a WP:BLP standard we'd also include that his colleagues sprang to his defence because he has always advocated for diversity and inclusion. In a letter to the Times 29 of his colleagues, male and female, said his help had been "instrumental in the advancement of many other women and men in science beyond those in his own lab" and "actively encouraged an interest in science in schoolchildren and young scientists, arranging for work experience and summer students of both genders to get their first taste of research in his lab."
 * What isn't helpful is this toxic atmosphere of us versus them prevailing in the discussion where anyone voicing a dissenting opinion is denounced and any attempt to engage in addressing the article issues is simply reverted. I have broken my own rule to comment here and I really shouldn't.  Again I fully realise this is futile suggesting the article reflects what sources say and I will be finding more useful things to do. WCM email 13:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, my hope was to get people who are more interested in BLP than Hunt to take a look at the article. The current consensus seems to be centered on the idea that Hunt said something that warranted public censure. But that just isn't what the sources tell us. Thomas B (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, for anybody interested in reality, the complaint at the time from the Korea Federation of Women's Science & Technology Associations (KOFWST), and Hunt's apology, are still available online. Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is well worth reading to get a sense of the hysteria that prevailed at the time. But it is obviously OR for the purpose of this article. Thomas B (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hysterical women eh? How very dare they! But this gives the lie to this whole mansplaining myth that everything was just a laugh. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that The current consensus seems to be centered on the idea that Hunt said something that warranted public censure is an assertion made without evidence. That isn't what the current or any recent version of this article says, nor do I see any editors making similar statements in this discussion on Talk.
 * Furthermore, the assertion that the prevailing view in the literature, is that he was joking, he isn't sexist and much of the furore whipped up at the time relied on quoting him out of context and a series of untrue statements isn't borne out by any evidence here, either. The only source provided in support of this perspective does not, in fact, refer to any such "prevailing view", and most of the sources offering statements along these lines are neither secondary nor reliable. WP:BALANCE in BLPs must be cautiously based on what high-quality sources actually say, not on what editors fervently believe - the strongly-held opinions of editors who have been blocked from an article's Talk page are unlikely to be reliable arbiters of appropriate content and tone for a BLP, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You don't seem very familiar with the case and somewhat new to the discussion of the article. Is that correct? Thomas B (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a fresh voice in this discussion, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I hope you will familiarize yourself with both the case itself and the sort of discussion we've been having. With this posting I'm mainly trying to attract people who care about BLP to the article, because I know what they will find if they look. But I grant that's it's a lot to ask, a lot of work. If you choose to do it, you have my thanks. Thomas B (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Jose Altuve addition
Can someone official add to Jose Altuve’s wiki that he has been in a modern day record of eight no hitters after Ronel Blanco’s no hitter on April 1st? 2601:248:8383:A350:A447:48D7:3DEE:70DD (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Please provide at least one URL leading to a reliable source to support your request. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

David Leonhardt
I’m not an editor (nor do I know him), but noticed that his bio doesn’t include the book he did in 2023 “Ours Was the Shining Future”, economic history about the fate of the American dream. Pretty well-reviewed, and seems worth mention. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/books/review/ours-was-the-shining-future-david-leonhardt.html

It’s a wonderful thing you all do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.78.111 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added a mention to the article – thanks for mentioning it Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Reliability of Looper.com
Exactly how reliable is the entertainment news site []? Particularly when it comes to biographical details? I can't tell if it's reliable or if it's some clickbait website that web scrapes info from elsewhere. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't know. Do you have a specific article you want to use as a citation? The reliability of a source depends greatly on the specific information it is giving. I mean, you wouldn't get medical advice from a cookbook, would you? So, reliability is not simply black and white, and we'd need to see exactly what the source says and what info it's supposed to support in order to give a real assessment. If you want to know what people think of it as a news source in general, you might have better luck at WP:RSN because that's what they do. But I'm not just going to start randomly reading their articles to give a general assessment here. (Or is this post some kind of clickbait?) Zaereth (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm referring to this particular edit on actress Loni Anderson's page. It's being used as a ref in regards to her being voted the Queen of the Valentine's Day Winter Formal. There was another ref prior to, but I removed as it was a high school yearbook on Classmates.com and that would probably fall under WP:PRIMARY. Plus Classmates.com is user-generated. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an WP:RSN question. Zaereth is correct: they do this there. To answer your question, it looks like an unreliable source and could be removed with an edit summary saying so. But absolute answers about sources come from the other forum. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll ask over at WP:RSN. Thank you. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For that particular information, I don't see any reason to doubt it. The article looks to be well written and cites its own sources a majority of the time. The problem I see is it doesn't contain nearly the amount of information that it's being used to support. It doesn't say where she grew up, what high school she attended, or what year it happened. In 1963 she was apparently enrolling in college according to the source. So, while I would probably trust it for that particular info, it's misleading to use it as if it supports the entire sentence and paragraph above. Zaereth (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Angela Rayner
There is current disagreement at the article, with a new editor, as to whether Rayner can be described as being under investigation by Greater Manchester Police for tax fraud. I have now removed the relevant material, as I feel it is contrary to WP:BLP. Any advice on how to progress this matter would be very welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * The editor concerned has how said that they will "leave it there for now until the outcome of the police investigation is concluded". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Rayner is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but is the allegation just at the investigation level? Is the investigation reported by multiple high quality sources? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Quality sources report that Greater Manchester Police are reconsidering their original decision not to investigate Rayner, following a request to do so, in a letter from Tory MP James Daly, i.e. it is not yet clear if they have even decided whether to investigate or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * So there's not even an investigation yet? Just an allegation and a prompt from a rival politician? I guess that could still be written neutrally. I guess inclusion is up to a consensus then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it could be included, in a neutral way. It has been widely reported over the past few weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can confirm. That's what it's looking like now. (And it probably doesn't belong yet, if at all. Time might inform us differently). JFHJr (㊟) 23:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

The new editor has now re-added the material using this source. I raised this at Reliable sources/Noticeboard and another editor has responded "Not reliable and certainly not a high quality sources as should be used in a WP:BLP". Some help or new ideas would again be welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The new editor seems rather over-excited on this point. I can see that this is quite likely to end badly for Rayner, but this is still at the level of WP:RUMOUR and so should largely be kept off the page for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As per my point at RSN Property118 is not a good source for BLP details, especially if it disagrees with other higher quality sources. The decision to not investigate is being reconsidered, but as far as any reliable source states Rayner is not under investigation at the moment. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Sonja van den Ende
I translated and expanded information about a Dutch journalist. But that person is generally seen as "affiliated with Russian propaganda and disinformation". I tried to make this as objective (NPOV) as possible, but I'd appreciate if someone could double check this, given this is a BLP article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've gone other the article and it's sources, I can't see anything blatantly wrong with it (other than a minor typo). Everything is properly referenced and attributed as necessary. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Kate Middleton
The gossip and conspiracy theories regarding Catherine, Princess of Wales (commonly known by her maiden name Catherine "Kate" Middleton) recent absence from public life following surgery has been spun off into its own article with the (rather questionable) title Where is Kate?. This article has already been taken to AFD and kept, but I think the article needs to be carefully looked over by editors experienced in BLP to make sure that it complies with BLP policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "rather questionable" &larr; I lol'd at the understatement. It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It just seems to me to be totally out of proportion. Compared to something like the Royal baccarat scandal, the long-term lasting significance of this seems minor. If we were writing about this decades on, this whole brouhaha would be summarised in a few sentences in Kate's bio rather than an entire article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As we know WP:NOTGOSSIP goes out the window when ... there's some juicy gossip. Also, basic standards on written English judging by the opening sentence. I mean, shit: Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you think? Was that Windsor Farm Shopper a body double, or not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I tried removing that, but the new user who totally dominates editing of that article (and who coincidentally has never edited an article unrelated to Kate in their 250+ edits) keeps edit warring it back in, clearly not understanding If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy. As outlined in Manual of Style/Lead section.
 * Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Who is Kate – What is she, that all the swains commend her..."(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I saw, all you did was unbold "Where is Kate?", which suggests the article title can still lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, in which case, why shouldn't we bold it? MOS:BOLDAVOID doesn't apply here, and I think the underlying issue is a valid disagreement about the article title. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello all, involved editor here – I created the article and sent it to AfD. I've taken a step back in recent days due to off-wiki commitments but wanted to second Hemiauchenia's sentiment: the AfD clearly highlighted that editors disagree on Wikipedia's scope for this topic, but identified consensus to keep, and the (ridiculously) sustained coverage is inviting, as you might imagine, quite a lot of updates as the story evolves.  Until my offwiki commitments (and a lot has been added since then!), editors were taking good care only to go off sources approved at WP:RSP, but of course there is a lot more to BLP policy than that, so experienced editors' oversight is very much welcome.  I think the whole "Where is Kate?" question should, as suggested at the AfD and on the talk page, be taken to a proposed page move; it's just not clear quite what alternative title is better. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Her name is not "Kate Middleton" & hasn't been since she married Prince William. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there actually any reliable sources about whether or not she took a married name, let alone which of the possible choices from her husband (Windsor, Mountbatten, Mountbatten-Windsor, Cambridge, Wales) she made? A quick Google search has some speculation sourced to UK tabloids like The Sun, Daily Express, and Daily Mail, but nothing that seems actually reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Kate Middleton" was never her name. She was "Catherine Middleton" prior to her wedding and has been "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" and "Catherine, Princess of Wales" since. Even the Prince of Wales, her spouse, refers to her as Catherine so does His Majesty the King Charles III. Further, reputable news outlets like BBC, ITV News, the Guardian, etc. also refer to her as "Catherine" in most of their articles. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Married women retain the right to use their maiden names unless they change their name by deed poll and have their birth certificates altered. There is no evidence Kate Middleton did that. Kate MIddleton is also her common name, the name usually used when referring to her, just as we use the maiden names of Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Kateryn Parr. While Kate is a contraction of Katherine, articles use contracted names for Bill Clinton, Prince Harry and Joe Biden. TFD (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I've made a tweak to WP:NOTNEWS in a (probably vain) attempt to tamp down on this sort of embarrassment in future. See what you think. Bon courage (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Where is Kate?" the article is 100% against NOTNEWS. The discussion of the photo and brief concern of her whereabouts is appropriate in Middleton's article, but that article is far far too detailed and given that the situation has blown over, its all gossipmongering at this point. BLP needs to weigh in a lot more than what the AFD !keeps states. --M asem (t) 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also against WP:NOR, since articles should be based on secondary sources while this article is based on primary news reporting, so in effect it's a reflection of (mere) Wikipedia editors deciding among themselves some gossipy trash in the news is of enyclopedic worth. Who the hell closed the AfD? Bon courage (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, editors at Catherine, Princess of Wales were censoring any mention of the speculation, which is what prompted me to write the article. They were pursuing FA status and didn't want the "trivial" news story, so they were closing discussions on the talk page requesting more coverage of the speculation with less than 24 hours' uptime.  Once the article was live, I added a sentence mentioning the speculation; that sentence was reverted within a day, and any mention of the speculation again disappeared from the article.
 * I wasn't really expecting Where is Kate? to survive AfD, and expect it will eventually be merged, as many on the AfD suggested with reference to WP:10YT. But for what it's worth, I think WP:GNG has been established, and some of the sources likely count as secondary for the analyses they provide.  To that extent, I think it passes WP:NOTNEWS even in the updated wording; it's just that editors disagree, validly, on the scope of Wikipedia. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 13:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As WP:N says, the GNG is not a guarantee that a standalone article is required and other P&G may apply to deny a standalone. The combination of BLP, NOT, and NOR here would reacily override the GNG. — M asem (t) 13:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I must say, the reasoning that some content is so poor it would prevent an WP:FA and needs to be hived off elsewhere means a new kind of fork has been discovered. A WP:CRAPFORK maybe? Bon courage (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:DISAPPEARINGFORK Martinevans123 (talk) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll have you know that Catherine, Princess of Wales is meant to be a concise outline of her accomplishments (source). God bless MSincccc, who's in middle school! IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 13:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, you actually mention only that which is significant in the amin article. For this reason, one might start adding the fact that she made an appearance at a charity event or Prince William opened a new youth centre this past week. That will unnecessarily expand the article. Regards MSincccc (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The idea that an encyclopedia article is a hagiography to some person is as much an issue as a news cycle is an appropriate subject of an article.  nableezy  - 14:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think what you did was perfectly reasonable, in the circumstances. But I can see why some readers might think they were reading a centre-page special in OK! magazine (but without all the pictures, of course) Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been WP:BOLD and converted the page to a redirect to Kate Middleton. Simonm223 (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * LOL and it's already been reverted. This is silly. Simonm223 (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Renominate at AfD? IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 13:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should create a wiki page every time a minor celebrity doesn't appear in photos for a few months. Simonm223 (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The AfD closed as keep two days ago with extensive participation (something like 40+ !votes). I'm all for WP:BOLD, but I just don't think it squares with collaboration to overturn an AfD so soon without discussion at DRV or AFD. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 13:58, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I simply don't think it's encyclopaedic to have a page devoted to idle gossip about the idle rich. You know WP:NOTGOSSIP. Simonm223 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a deletion rationale – take it to AfD. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 14:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * How long before we can renominate the article? WP:RENOM specifically WP:6MONTHS says that we shouldn’t renominate until six months has passed if it was previously closed as ‘keep’, unless there is something new to say. The argument of this being tabloid gossip was discussed in the original AfD. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The correct route would be to initiate a review of the AfD close. Bon courage (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of the five reasons in WP:DRV, which one(s) should we put forward for the review? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd say #1. The consensus wasn't divined correctly because arguments not in accord with the WP:PAGs were overweighted. Bon courage (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that’s for a deletion review, not a AfD close review! Is there any pages for the process of an AfD close review? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it would be a deletion review. Bon courage (talk) 14:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for informing me, I’m still a newcomer! Do we notify the admin who closed it about this discussion? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've never actually initiated that before. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RENOM is just an essay, and in my limited experience, it's not unusual for no-consensus closures to reappear at AfD not long afterwards. A recent precedent with high participation would be Qatari soft power.  I've been told off before for improper AfD closures and clearly do not have an impartial view, but I was somewhat surprised the AfD closed as Keep rather than No Consensus.  There might be not much point taking it to DRV when no consensus defaults to keep as status quo, unless the pursued outcome would be relisting or a new AfD, but all this is to say that in this case, I don't think we need to wait six months.  But it won't be a good look for it to return to AfD two days after the previous one closed as Keep without DRV. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * She's not wholly idle. Quite keen on photoshop. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:POINT seems an understatement for redirecting a page with the edit summary "Come on this page should just be a redirect to the page for Kate Middleton. Let's not be silly." 2 days after an unchallenged "keep" admin close of a 66 participant AfD. DeCausa (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Reading/scanning the AFD, there is very little mention of BLP concerns, and certainly not addressed by the keep! Votes. Also, both NOT News and the GNG stress that bursts if news coverage are not reasons to keep an article. The AFD should be rerun but standing by the fact the is against BLP, effectively celebrity gossip taken up to 11 due to ties with the Royal family.  If in a year there is still coverage of this in the news then maybe an article makes sense, but right now the standalone article is a mockery of WP' BLP concerns, which pretty much override everything.<span id="Masem:1711036955831:WikipediaFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem  (t) 16:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * At least Russian media haven't announced that she's dead (yet). Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Xymmax was the admin who closed the AfD. This is to notify them about this noticeboard. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey. I wanted to just comment as I’m new to editing. My amount of edits on the article is because I wanted to keep this well sourced, and not promote conspiracies etc. I kept most of the sources to be RS, and I’m not too well versed on policies such as NOTNEWS. I tried to keep it concise, by removing unnecessary detail. It did get worldwide coverage beyond news, and I cited the reaction and wider impact. Also any disagreements I had, I opened up a discussion on the talk page to build a consensus. Should we open up an AfD after she has returned to public duties when the dust settles? TheSpacebook (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see why the title seems questionable, but given that the coverage of it seems to be primarily as an internet fad/meme perhaps its appropriate that its title be meme like. It brings to mind Luiza que está no Canadá which also involved a living person but with the added twist that they were a minor. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Random memes should not get distinct pages unless they can pass WP:10YT and, in this case, no page should have been created until after the dust settled. As it is we do, now, have a page dedicated to gossip about a WP:BLP - and a very badly closed AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And both of them "pass" WP:10YT so what is your point? The idea that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is just preposterous, it should not be taken seriously for even a second. Imagine if we tried to apply that standard to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * We can't stop editors from creating articles on breaking news events (though we should be aiming to have editors consider holding off until it's clear NEVENTS and other policies are passed, and using Wikinews if they want to report news as it happens), but we can assess articles within a few days of their creation to make sure the news topic is not just a burst if coverage, has encyclopedic significance, and isn't violating any policies. That is what is being begged here, because it is a glaring BLP issue.<span id="Masem:1711038408513:WikipediaFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * AfD is not cleanup, there are not BLP issues here which require or even suggest deletion. Whatever you want to call it there is a notable topic here, I know that because CNN keeps pushing notifications about it to my phone... And I don't live in the UK. Whatever this is will be in the history books they write in ten or twenty years. Also not only can we not stop it, we actually encourage it. In fact its rushing to deletion which is discouraged, see Notability (events). Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic. And the overtly in depth fascination with Middleton's life *is* a BLP issue that we should be extremely careful around, not simply parroting the media's cover just because its there.<span id="Masem:1711039092109:WikipediaFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic." these complaints sound more like snobbery than anything that has to do with policy or guideline. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's the entire principle of not only NOT News but NOT#IInfo. Mere publication of material in verified sources doesn't mean WP should include it. We summarize events, not document events every hour, even if there, 's news about it every hour. It's why we function far different from a newspaper.<span id="Masem:1711040028163:WikipediaFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems to be the opposite of the principle of WP:NOTNEWS unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are apparently. We can include current events and there is no question that a brief summary of this can be made on the bio page. But we should be including every single news report about this in a seperate article, nor write articles as news reports. And that's before applying the stronger requirements for BLP GOSSIP. The excessive detailed coverage is one of many many exples of NOT News not being followed, a lot which has stemmed from how topics in the AP2 area have been covered since 2016, coupled with COVID and the Ukraine war, and it's something we need to correct.<span id="Masem:1711041046290:WikipediaFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The article does not seem to include every single news report and an article being written as a news report wouldn't be a reason to delete it (this one doesn't seem to be either). NOTNEWS actually says "Editors are encouraged ... to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." but you're saying it actually says that developing stand-alone articles on the most significant current events is discouraged? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The brief absence of a media celebrity from public appears and rampent speculation of that absence is not necessarily a most significant current event, when compared to things like the Ukraine war, or events in the Gaza strip. There is a hell if a lot of systematic media bias on this story to make it seem more important than it is, but when one steps back and frames the question as a BLP concern, it's clear this should not be treated as a significant news event.<span id="Masem:1711042154853:WikipediaFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If that were clear we wouldn't be having this conversation. I find the efforts to frame the subject as some sort of puff celebrity rather than a political figure rather interesting, but then again my primary interest is politics so my bias is to see everything from that angle. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Coming soon: Trump's bond and McConnell's glitch and Biden's stutter ... Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ... Mark Sanford extramarital affair and Disappearance of Peng Shuai ... Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd point to WP:OSE here except it's a black mark upon Wikipedia that either of those pages exist too. Particularly the Sanford one which is, again, little more than and amusing anecdote about a minor politician. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well that and that this isn't a deletion discussion and OSE is only about deletion discussions. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * No, this is what happens when a deletion discussion is mishandled. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The author of the article Where is Kate? expressed a desire to incorporate some of its information into the main article. As speculation expanded, a new article was subsequently created. Recently, there have been users advocating for the inclusion of the name "Kate Middleton" in the main article. I maintain an assumption of good faith and am keen to ascertain the community's perspective on this matter. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a celebrity not appearing on camera for a couple of months has equivalent notability to a major war? I've put forward a deletion review. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is a stupid standard which should never be applied because it goes against commons sense as well as established policy and guideline. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading overly broadly into some ambiguity in my initial sentence so let me clarify: no page should be created about internet gossip regarding a celebrity until such time as some sort of encyclopedic significance is established. Furthermore Wikipedia should be far more patient to list topics related to current news cycles per WP:NOTNEWS, especially when those news cycles are principally from the entertainment section and involve living people. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The encyclopedic significance has been established. NOTNEWS says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." Notability (events) says we should be patient with deletion not creation. Also looking around I'm not seeing support for your assertion that "principally from the entertainment section" I'm seeing most reliable sources handle this as hard news (which to be fair is interesting). That makes sense though as Middleton is not an entertainer, they are primarily notable for holding a political position. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe that NOTNEWS may apply here, but I don’t think WP:GOSSIP does. I’ve kept it mostly cited with RS, and removed trivia such as an airport making a joke tweet about it. The article mainly focuses on the commentary, so isnt just internet gossip. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Again I would ask whether a celebrity failing to do photo ops for a few months constitutes "the most significant current events". Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When top tier papers around the world are running feature stories on it yeah it does... I would also note that the event (notable topic) is the controversy around the political figure failing to do photo ops for a few months, not the failure itself. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given their rarity, maybe the agency kill orders provide encyclopedic significance. Perhaps the article would seem more encyclopedic if it was refocused on the kill orders as the subject. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * But the kill notices aren't what secondary sources are discussing. We're not seeing dozens of articles and commentary about the kill notices: we're seeing dozens upon dozens of articles and commentary discussing the photograph and the surrounding speculation, both the speculation that preceded the photograph's publication and the speculation that succeeded it.  As one Delete-!voting editor said in the AfD, this is what makes the choice of article title so tricky.  One issue is that we can't really sever photograph from speculation; another issue is that it's perhaps increasingly unclear to what extent the photograph even is the primary topic here.  Many of us were expecting the news to move on after the photograph and...it hasn't; it's moved on to the farm shop video, and goodness knows what else before the Princess of Wales returns to public duties. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * This entire side article seems like a major BLP violation, particularly of WP:GOSSIP. It doesn't really matter that top level news sources are promulgating the gossip, it still remains essentially celebrity gossip regardless. And not even on something with evidence, but just speculation with no basis. The worst kind of gossip. The people arguing to keep it seem like gossip mongers themselves, wanting an article only because they support the gossip itself. Silver  seren C 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm no fan of the royal family, but that is one of the worst articles I've ever seen and should have been nuked without prejudice. The AfD is a disgrace. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Black and Silver here. I mean, seriously, when an article title consists of a question you know it's going to be bad. Encyclopedia articles are about things, and this is not a thing. As suspected, it reads just like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia article, and I mean bad. It's full of rumor mongering and even innuendo. This definitely should not have been kept for even a second. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: It may be missed in the chatter above, so may I highlight, without wishing to canvass, that Where is Kate? is undergoing deletion review (Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21). I don't think continuing the pile-on against the AfD closure or the article is really helpful on this noticeboard; the discussion should be taken there. IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a point in the Deletion Review, since clearly the close with that AfD was really no other way to go with how the discussion itself played out. No consensus at worst. But the problem is that all the editors who voted Keep in said discussion, especially with their extremely poor reasoning, should be ashamed of themselves. Silver  seren C 21:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. I haven't read the AFD discussion because I didn't see it linked anywhere, but in general one of the big problems I've seen at AFD is that it tends to become a haven for article saviors, that is, those who believe it's somehow necessary or beneficial to save articles at all cost, no matter how terribly written, poorly sourced, or unencyclopedic they are. Inclusionism for inclusionist's sake. Regardless of AFD, though, the article is just awful. Quantity is no substitute for quality. Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It's so good to see that there are still users on Wikipedia who possess common sense and see this article as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP. I always maintained the position that what we had in the main article was enough. Now we have a page with running commentary about every move she makes. The AfD was dominated to an extent by relatively new users (some had joined within the past two years) so l'd understand if they were not fully familiar with the policies. Now that the article has been kept for the time being, the text needs to be polished. All references to primary sources and any questionable/speculative info should be removed. Keivan.f  Talk 01:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break (Catherine, Princess of Wales)
There is now a move request at Talk:Where_is_Kate%3F. Please participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Arbitary Break? Well deserved, I say. These Royals work jolly hard, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, a "give a bazillion options so there'll be no consensus for change" RfC. It's almost like this whole episode is some kind of elaborate trolling to test how ridiculous Wikipedia can be made to look (and if so, fair play, it's knocked it for six!) Bon courage (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing. The only thing that article should be moved to is a redirect to the main article. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And now it turns out the PoW is/was being treated for cancer, the media harassment comes into relief for what it was, and Wikipedia as a gleeful fellow traveller. I hope people feel suitably ashamed. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am genuinely ashamed for all the people who took part in the witch hunt; not in the press and on social media, but here on Wikipedia as well. We now have an article dedicated to analyzing the movements of a person who has been diagnosed with cancer during the period of her treatment. This is clearly a WP:BLP issue. Keivan.f  Talk 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this was a shameful violation of BLP. The entire article should be deleted ASAP and everyone involved in writing it should take a good long look at themselves. The world was watching while we invaded the privacy of someone with cancer.  Pinguinn     🐧   00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Don't be dramatic... We didn't invade anyone's privacy, we just documented it. If the world was watching then surely you can link to the coverage of wikipedia's handling of the issue in RS, I haven't seen any. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These type of responses, ironically, are better suited to tabloid headlines than Wikipedia. I !voted in the first AfD, but not for keep, but people who write that sort of hyperbole and use absurd terms like "witch hunt" are the ones who need to take a long look at themselves. DeCausa (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if the NYTimes went to cover the gossip and speculation to that much depth, we as both a summary work and with a strict BLP policy that errs on protecting the individual, we would not include that much depth. We do not follow the example set by the media blindly and are not bound to having to consider the same topics as important as they do when that attention violates core content policies. M asem (t) 00:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well if we aren't going to follow the behavior policies sure lets at least follow the content ones... None of that excuses the hyperbole, dramatization, and/or personal attacks on editors over a content dispute. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion whether it "violated core content policies". The nonsense about "shame", "witch hunts", "gleefulness" and "blindly" doing xyz is kneejerk tabloidese at its worst. DeCausa (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that people seem to be letting their emotions run amok. I don't follow the royal family nor do I care to. There are a lot of poorly thought and logically flawed arguments being tossed about, and using words like DeCausa is describing is one of them, called appeal to emotion. Likewise, arguments of privacy are also mostly appeals to emotion, and while I am all for respecting people's privacy, this is rarely the case with very high-profile public figures. Royalty is one of the few cases where notability is indeed inherited. There was a time when they were the only celebrities, and we're not that far removed from the age of Henry VIII when people would even pay to watch them eat or sleep or have sex. The laws don't protect their privacy as they would a private individual, so the privacy argument is more of an ethical question. Not that it should be ignored, but it should be treated as a matter of ethics rather than a BLP policy issue.


 * That said, BLP policy is not really where the problems lie. Despite its rapid expansion, the article is still very unencyclopedic in nature. It still reads very much like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. By that, I mean it's written in a narrative style rather than expository style, as sort of a blow by blow account. It's sensationalistic to the Nth degree. It's mostly rumor and speculation and just as fringe as any pseudoscientific article I've ever seen. It's not really about any particular thing that would deserve a standalone article (such as her political stances or anything of that nature) and thus is giving undue weight to sources because we're not weighing them in proportion to all other sources about the subject, like we would if this were a part of the main article. In short, it is just a really poorly crafted article, and to call it anything else is merely fooling oneself. It certainly won't fool the average reader. Zaereth (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This, for the most part. As we now know several of the issues around her absence is related to this diagonsis for cancer, there's still some details to explain that while she was getting this, she was scarce from public appears and led to this weird photo issue. But for WP, at this point, that's all we can summarize in a short paragraph in talking about her cancer diagonsis. It no longer needs the blow-by-blow that the article was written in.<br style="margin-bottom:0.5em"/>Stepping back from this specific case, we do have problems with editors writing in newspaper style, updating details but without summarization in many breaking and ongoing news articles. That leaves for massive cleanup issues down the road. For example, most of our articles related to how COVID was handled by various countries or states or the like are beyond excessive in the level of detail that WP should be written in. Normally that's not a pressing matter, but when BLP or other higher level content policies become involved, then we have course correct and rather quickly.<span id="Masem:1711159651204:WikipediaFTTCLNBiographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard" class="FTTCmt"> — M asem (t) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Up for deletion again
See Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination). Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Now been procedurally closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tee hee. Just like when someone appeals and then refiles in real life. JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears the DR will fail and the article will again be listed for deletion.
 * As one editor mentioned, there are articles about malicious gossip and conspiracy theories and they can be written neutrally. The problem with this article is that it treats the speculation as well-founded and therefore continues the malicious attack on the Princess of Wales and her family.
 * In order to present the topic in a neutral manner, it should adhere to WP:FRINGE. The story isn't about Kate but about the deluded people who were asking where she was. To draw a comparison with the Moon landing conspiracy theory, which has been cited, that article does not use 9/10s of its text questioning the official version.
 * If the article is nominated for deletion, I suggest Blow it up! as the best reason. The article is so hopeless that it can only become neutral by starting again. And let's choose a non-neutral title. TFD (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Mike Rinder
This biography makes false claims about his achievements and awards. Mike Rinder is not a co-founder of The Aftermath Foundation. He was invited onto the board of the foundation after it was co-founded by Luis Garcia and Aaron Smith-Levin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:B80:59C0:BCFD:4E17:5C10:91DE (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a recent discussion on that issue at Talk:Mike_Rinder, you could participate there. Schazjmd   (talk)  23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Abbas Ansari
Do these edits meet our NPOV and sourcing policies? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There are some BLPCRIME concerns since it's not clear if he is convicted of anything yet. It seems like he is in jail awaiting trial. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Morbidthoughts Ouch. Apologies, I didn't include a diff! Specifically, Thanks. Doug Weller  talk 07:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Manitoba Warriors
A question has come up whether the mention of the name of one of the victims of crime mentioned in the article's Expansion section, Taisa Marunchak, in connection with an incident involving her in 1996 and her later testimony in a criminal case is necessary to the article in the light of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP1E. The article includes many rather graphic details of crimes involving the subject gang and their adversaries during the 1990s. The primary and sole source for naming Marunchak is a book by a journalist who covered the events at the time: Langton, Jerry (2015). Cold War How Organized Crime Works in Canada and Why It's About to Get More Violent. Toronto: HarperColllins. ISBN 978-1-4434-3255-9. The other sources cited as references in the article are not cited for the name. A search of the Newspaper Archive for the terms "Manitoba Warriors" turned up 1,481 articles from 1996 alone. I wasn't able to go through each one. But clearly the gang was extensively covered in news reports from the time period around the incidents detailed in that section of the article. However, a search for Marunchak's name did not turn up any mentions in the same resource. It appears that a case opened in the Office of the Privacy Commission of Canada (FIPPA-2014-0188) (PIPEDA- 032066) led to the removal of Marunchak's name from articles on the internet. I was not able to determine whether the lack of mentions in the newspaper article resource was due to that action by the Privacy Commission, or simply that there was no mention of Marunchak by name in those articles. Would removing the name and identifying the victim (and later Crown witness) by her age be a solution which would not significantly affect the quality of the article? Geoff &#124; Who, me? 13:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The name should be removed under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll remove the name. Thanks for the feedback. Geoff &#124; Who, me? 18:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment/Thom Darden/1
In response to Good article reassessment/Thom Darden/1, I have added two stories about Thom Darden that are unflattering. I want them to be reviewed here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , be advised, I have added content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed his alleged contribution to the ouster of his coach since The NY Times article does not directly verify this, instead using the weasel language "Some Browns historians remembered that Thom Darden had been one of the ringleaders in the players' unrest". It can be seen as WP:BLPGOSSIP and also requires more than one RS citation under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Also, the Boston Globe sports columnist, Michael Madden, should not be used to assert facts under WP:RSEDITORIAL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Morbidthoughts Are you saying that the content can be restored with supporting RS?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Multiple RS are needed to discuss his role that led to the alleged ouster while RS is needed to support whatever facts Madden raised. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Morbidthoughts, Can I readd the ouster with the recently added content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just added a bit more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the cited news article, the detail about the ouster is more appropriate in the Forrest Gregg article. Also, there may be too much detail about McInally when the focus of the article should be on Darden. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I have given all three bios some content.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am skeptical about the first paragraph of Thom Darden. Is the fact that in 1985 he was allegedly listed as a suspected drug dealer in a single FBI document really due weight? I cannot find any evidence that anything ever came of this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It was very widely covered in the press, which is why I included it. In terms of weight, it is only 2 sentences. I did not see press about any formal charges related to this suspect status.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Who knows if there was actually a FBI document. It was testimony by a government informant that he saw Darden's name on a document the FBI gave him. It's not clear what the context was in terms of the trial. I need review the cited sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The cited stories are variations of these two. I could not find any mention of this incident in RS after November 1985. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Whirr
I'm not 100% familiar with how wikipedia works but I noticed a change on the wikipedia page for the shoegaze band Whirr about how they have influenced other shoegaze artist such as Wisp and Flyingfish. Not only is this claim unsupported by any sources, Flyingfish is not a shoegaze artist and rather categorizes themselves as alt rock on their instagram bio. I also think this information does not belong in the category of history, but I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.255.141 (talk • contribs) 12:57 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The genre and impact of this band are not claims about a living person, so this isn't the appropriate place to discuss this topic. Please start a discussion on the article talk page instead. Jfire (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Third-party claims in BLPs and about living persons need to be reliably sourced. A BLP claiming to participate or any other verb in a genre revival needs citations. Claiming to influence any particular band needs citations. I've removed the paragraph. Anyone with a reliable secondary source is welcome to replace any supportable prose that I removed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Bilan Osman [English 9
I have never edited wikipedia before so I don't know how this works but I am swedish and sources 5-9 are listed saying "She has repeatedly said that she cannot stand white people." which is not quoting the news articles listed. I think this is due to a twitter hate campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.142.97 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I couldn't read most of the sources from my computer because they seem to require cookies, and the place I work at doesn't allow websites to download cookies. However, I was able to read sources 6 and 9 and they are op/ed pieces and not actual news articles. You can tell because the author is expressing her own opinion. Not only that, but they are the exact same op/ed simply printed in different sources. While I agree with the sentiment of the author, in that racism is not limited to any single race, op/ed columns are not reliable sources for anything but the author's opinion. If the other sources are also opinion pieces, then I would suggest simply removing the section based on unreliable sourcing. If they are actual news articles, then I would suggest giving the actual quotes and a brief summary of the point of the articles, but that has to be determined by someone who can actually see the sources, which unfortunately I can't. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * 8 is also an opinion column. 7 is by the subject, but based on a Google translate of it, does not appear to contain the statement being cited (and I think it was 8 that made a reference to the subject saying they were finding it harder to stand the people in question, which is a different statement from "can't stand". Number 5 looks like it may be some sort of usable interview, but it is behind a paywall that I do not have the time an energy to navigate right now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * In that case I'd just go ahead and remove it, but it looks like it has already been taken care of. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks to the unnameable site I was made aware of this BLP (and later of this discussion). A couple of us have now edited it extensively. My latest edit expands it considerably. I can confirm that the "Controversy" section was based on opinion articles not labelled as such; another was added by the article creator,, in one of the first edits to the article, with the edit summary including the words "his opinion isn't worth much". Unfortunately it Drmies didn't tag it as opinion, and it is a hostile article, essentially a counter by another columnist to the subject's columns in the same newspaper. Her work has indeed occasioned controversy, and many articles about her and interviews with her are paywalled. I don't advocate protection; one of the editors who inserted a "Controversy" section based on opinion articles is (who I will welcome after posting this) and although such content has also been inserted by IPs, it's been removed by at least one IP (10 March). I think heavy attention by watchers is required. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * , you know very well that there was no "controversy" section in the stub I created and worked on. Citing the first half of my edit summary is a bit misleading--anyone can see that it was meant to indicate that presumably the facts would have been checked. We do not usually "label" or "tag" sources as "opinion articles", but I did, as the entirety of the summary indicates. The suggestion that I would somehow be responsible for a BLP violation is a bit unsavory. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If happens to come by, perhaps they can explain how they defend the BLP violation in Kadir Kasirga, where the only evidence for "has been featured in Swedish police investigations connected to his brother" is from a right-wing populist rage which contained vague and tendentious allegations, without a shred of evidence, like "in interrogations it is alleged that the money instead comes from the politically active elder brother Kadir Kasirga" and "Voices are now being raised that it is a security risk with politicians in the Riksdag who have close relatives who are serious criminals." Which voices? Sure, he's been "featured", but in the press, saying he and his brother chose different paths in life. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for looking at the editor's other work and giving them the BLP contentious topics notification. I in no way intended to implicate you in a BLP violation; your edit summary did indeed make clear why you were using that source (although ironically the Expo foundation was in the source on the award) and as I stated, the "Controversy" section was inserted—and edit warred back in—more recently. Unfortunately you didn't use the "type=" parameter in the citation, so some readers and editors may have assumed it was a neutral report. Anyway, I hope I've got it right in my recent edit, and this is an article that I do believe needs to be watched. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Arvind Kejriwal
User:Haani40 wants to insert a conspiracy theory that apparently Arvind Kejriwal received money from "Ford Foundation" to destabilise India at the behest of the US. The only source for this is a random commercial book written by a certain RSN Singh who is a retired military official and participates in partisan talk shows. I removed it but he added it back in, so I am bring this here directly because it looks deeply libelous and I see no point in discussing it with him if he can't see why it shouldn't be in the article. MrMkG (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The same claim is also found at RSN Singh. Sourced to this book:
 * Lancer Publishers self-describes as "the foremost military publishing house in India since 1983." Thoughts on reliability for this statement? Rotary Engine talk 22:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It's just marketing. There is a big market for military related books in India and there are dime a dozen junk books. The publishers are solely commercial interest based. Anti-national is also a deeply partisan pejorative term being used to demonise the opposition and dissidents (p. 86). MrMkG (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The first thing I usually do with books is check the publisher's reputation, because that's one of the best ways to tell reliability. I couldn't find any reviews of Lancer Publishing, which is discouraging but not definitive.


 * Then I looked at the book. It's not a historical account or anything but is a persuasive book, and persuasive style quite often includes both fact and fiction to make its point, so strike two, I would not count it as being very reliable. Third is that the edit in question is simply the author's opinion of the subject. An opinion by qualified people on a subject is often very informative (for example, a book review, restaurant review, or peer review of a medical journal), but I see no reason why this author's opinion is of any significance. As the book states in its preface, its goal is to "expose the modern day demons who are on a do or die mission to destroy the Bharat Nation", and the whole thing is written in that tone, so strike four. I would not count it as a reliable source. Zaereth (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Any allegations like that require multiple RS per WP:REDFLAG and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ￼As a new user, I have been seeking advise from and doing as he says. I have even mentioned in my edit summary that I have sought advice from him. Please see this diff. I believe that this should have been discussed on the Talk page of the article first. When there is a discussion on the Talk page also, I ping  when I am unsure of something. I have read what the other editors have written and will not edit war over this point and request not to be sanctioned (especially since there was no discussion about this on the Talk page of the article). I am expecting  to write a few words in my defense here. Thank you!-Haani40 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Your explanation is sufficient. No need to defend yourself. This board is for answering questions about policy, giving advice, and enforcing BLP policy. This is not WP:ANI and we don't judge an editor's actions or "punish" them here, so no need to worry. Just take it as a learning experience to remember in the future. Zaereth (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ￼Thanks for explaining . Another user has reverted my edit at the RSN Singh article which can be seen in this diff. If I add another reliable source about the allegation on Arvind Kejriwal by RSN Singh will it pass muster and be accepted at least in the RSN Singh article?-Haani40 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, not if you are using Kejriwal's name. BLP policy overrides all other policies and applies to any article that discusses living people. It even applies to talk pages and noticeboards. Instead of focusing on this one point, instead try summarizing the point of the book itself, without naming any specific people. Better yet, find reviews of the book and summarize those instead. This one detail is far too specific. Zaereth (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Tiffany Henyard
On the article for Tiffany Henyard, information pertaining to an arrest and charge has been repeatedly reinserted using Chicago Police records and an NY Post article. However, per both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NYPOST, I'm 90% sure that this information should be removed until better sourcing is utilized. I am also fairly confident that this constitutes a 3RRNO exemption under reason 7, but would prefer this resolved without leaning on that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like all parties are in agreement now on the page, but comments from the experts here would be appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is a mess of WP:BLPCRIME violations and near violations. Especially the section on her political tenure. I've never heard of Henyard before so there may be context I'm missing but much of this article should be nuked. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I came to it during a brief anti-vandalism sojourn and it's been popping up in my watchlist with BLP issues since. I feel like I lack the BLPCRIME expertise necessary in this context, but I may remove some of the most obviously not-permitted stuff. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean please do. Apparently she's a public figure (I've never heard of her and she's apparently the mayor of a village in Illinois but I guess that counts) so accusations can be included, I suppose, but we should certainly be avoiding anything in Wikivoice that says she's an extortionist and should likely be avoiding lurid blow-by-blow details of things like arrests. (for the record, the BLPCRIME adjustment for public figures is If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.)Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Wow, that article is absolutely terrible. I couldn't get past even the first few sections without my eyes glazing over and nodding off. It has a hell of a lot of words that don't actually say anything. (I'd almost guess it was written by a politician.) It comes off like the usual political-mudslinging that someone tried to turn into an article. For example, here's just one paragraph:


 * "As mayor, Henyard has become greatly embroiled in scandals involving allegations of corruption, fraud, and other misconduct. By early 2024, these scandals had attracted attention from national, and even foreign, news outlets.[29] Henyard has dismissed criticism of her, accusing opponents and the news media of engaging in "politricks" (a portmanteau of "politics" and "tricks").[30] She has accused political opponents of being misogynistic.[31]Within the first several months of her tenure, a number of controversies she was involved in had caused her to face protest from some community members and calls for her resignation.[32] In February 2024, Fox 32 Chicago (WFLD) reported that numerous individuals in Dolton had confirmed to them that they were interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as part of an evident probe into Henyard's activities as mayor.[33] The Chicago Tribune soon after reported that an unnamed law enforcement official had confirmed to them that a FBI investigation into Henyard existed.[34] The FBI itself has not confirmed this.[35] In 2022, the editorial board of the Chicago Sun Times called alleged corruption in Henyard's governance of Dolton as, "a theme that's common in too many south suburban governmental units."[36]"


 * Yet the article never describes any facts of this alleged corruption, fraud or other misconduct. We never actually describe these alleged controversies beyond saying they exist. No facts or details about this alleged FBI investigation. It's all just a bunch of doubletalk, and the entire article reads like that! And my goodness is it a long article, even for a president let along a mayor of a small town, and it apparently reads like that all the way through! It looks like it's just a laundry list of allegations, none of which are described with facts or in any detail except to say the the allegations allegedly exist. (And on a side note, does anyone think it's really necessary to explain "politricks" to the average reader, or does that simply come off as condescending?)


 * Then there's other crap about her having mold in her house and wishing the former mayor well after his stroke, and stuff like that. Really trivial crap no one is interested in.


 * But when it comes to the allegations and how it relates to things like BLPCRIME, I don't even know where to begin, because other than a long, drawn-out list of vague statements we really have no facts or details about them that I can tell. Granted, I was not even able to make it halfway through the article before my brain was numb, but I'd say first this article needs a complete rewrite to make it even readable, and massive amount of that stuff cut out, before getting into specific accusations, because as is I don't know what this is all about or even where to begin. Zaereth (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * •"article never describes any facts of this alleged corruption, fraud or other misconduct"...."none of which are described with facts or in any detail except to say the the allegations allegedly exist" is a patently dishonest assertion on your part
 * •" does anyone think it's really necessary to explain "politricks" to the average reader, or does that simply come off as condescending", Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to readers. Not everyone (especially some neurodivergent individuals) pick up on puns and portmanteau's as you might.
 * •"having mold in her house" demonstrates poor reading comprehension on your part, as that is not about mold in her own residence. It was mention of practices of Henyard as a landlord of a property which was reported to contain mold and to have continued to collect Section 8 compensation in absence of a tenant. Conduct of a public figure as a landlord and recipient of section 8 federal compensation seems to have some similarities the mentions of PPP loan dealings of various politicians' businesses, business ventures of politicians (such as Lauren Boebert), and landlord practices of officeholders such as Ronald Gidwitz. But if you really think it should not be included, okay.
 * But you seem to be of two contrasting assertions. You seem to be arguing both that article needs to be way more detailed; but also to be arguing that the article being detailed and being descriptive is something that needs to be avoided. SecretName101 (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No. I'm saying that the article is terrible. That's not meant as an insult but constructive criticism, but I have to be blunt about it because it would take a wall of text to sugar coat it. Seriously, in the real world I charge a good fee for what I'm giving you for free. Writing is hard! But hard writing makes for easy reading. Put yourself in the reader's shoes. Try imagining how hard it is for the average reader to read that article and try to come to a coherent understanding of all that.


 * An encyclopedia is a quick reference guide, not an in-depth story or analysis. We briefly tell you what a nuclear reactor is and kinda how it works, and leave all the atomic-physics details in the textbooks. An encyclopedia is a summary of the sources, which means cutting out all of the boring, extraneous details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty. The gist of it. We don't need blow-by-blow details in narrative style. We don't need every single thing she's ever done wrong or has been criticized for. We're not a newspaper or a book. We use "expository summary style", and summarizing means cutting out stuff, the boring details, the trivial crap, and focusing on the main points.


 * As counterintuitive as it may seem, summarizing is very helpful to the reader. All the details and trivial stuff is always added for the writer's benefit, but it just bogs things down and hides the really important stuff like a polar bear in a snowstorm. In the case of writing, there's an old adage, "Less is more." Quality over quantity, because adding too much has the opposite effect intended. People won't absorb any of it if the article is unreadable, will they?


 * There's another old adage in the writing profession, "Show, don't tell" and it's just as true for an encyclopedia as it is for any other type of writing. When you give us the big picture in broad strokes, it leaves plenty of room to describe those big-ticket items in just enough detail for the reader to comprehend. Don't tell me she committed fraud or was part of some controversy. Show me. That's what separates a boring article from an interesting one. For example, check out any well-written article and look to see how they differ from this one. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the same as a literal encyclopedia in regards to the brevity employed. WP:NOTPAPER. That is genuinely a key facet of this website. SecretName101 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have a feeling you're not quite picking up what I'm laying down, so I'll put it another way. There's a difference between good writing and bad writing, and this is bad writing. It's universal, across all languages and cultures, and has been since... always. People first began to define it in the days of Babylon, ancient Greece, and Persia, but they didn't make it up. They just worked out the principles that were always there.


 * There are four basic styles of writing: descriptive, persuasive, narrative, and expository. Descriptive is what you see in poems and travel brochures. Persuasive is in opinion/editorial columns and political commentary. Narrative is almost exclusively used for fiction. so if you're writing in a narrative style it will come off to the reader as fictional.


 * Almost all non-fiction is written in some form of expository writing. What makes encyclopedic writing different is it's a tertiary source, and as such is written in WP:Summary style. We didn't make that up either. It's is also universal, going all the way back to their inventor, Pliny the Elder, 2000 years ago. It's what makes it useful to the general reader who just wants the gist of it and is not interested in reading the entire book (which is a vast majority of readers, like 99+%).


 * If you don't believe me, then look it up for yourself. I recommend the books: On writing well: The Classical Guide to Writing Non-fiction by William Zinsser, Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Reading and Writing: Nonfiction Genres, by Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski. Or, since expository writing very much mimics the scientific method, Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills. As Zinsser's Law says, "Easy writing makes for hard reading. Hard writing makes for easy reading." Now, do you honestly think it's better to have an article that is badly written or one that is written well? Zaereth (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are so troubled by the article and so good at writing, you have a wide open invitation to revise/repair the article SecretName101 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'll chip in here since I about the article at its talk page: I cited WP:UNDUE after adding Template:Overly detailed due to the extensive list of allegations/controversies stemming from local sources, but I agree that some of the issues probably fall more clearly under BLP policies – I'm just not too familiar with those policies (hence why I didn't try to discuss them originally). RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's the deal, as I see it. As BLP policy is concerned, the subjects falls under the rules in WP:WELLKNOWN. This means that things such as fraud that are criminal allegations need to be widely reported in RSs. Not a single source, but widely reported. Other things such as lawsuits and "controversies" that are not criminal matters need to be weighed and portioned out according to NPOV.


 * The big problem here is none of these allegations or controversies are described in the article, anywhere, so how do you judge what's criminal or civil, or even what's real and what's mudslinging politics? These things should all have a what, where, when, who, and how. In other words, there needs to be some substance to them or they're just hollow, meaningless statements. It's no different from name calling. But in cases such as using the word "fraud", now we're into criminal offenses, so regardless that falls under WELLKNOWN.


 * If a fraud was committed, there should be a time, place, and person it happened to, and a specific way that it happened, so one would expect that info to accompany the allegation. Likewise, the definition of "controversy" is a "large public debate about a topic or an issue", so there should be some coverage of this debate and what is being debated. This article lacks all of that, so it's hard to know exactly what are BLP problems and what are not. It amounts to basically name calling, and in my opinion that in itself is the biggest BLP problem, which is why I suggested we blow it up and start over, below. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To the original comment, yes. Her automobile-related arrest should not be re-added. Its removal was correct. SecretName101 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging since they are the primary author of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've made a second-pass at cleanup here, focusing on WP:DUE principally, along with a few grammar fixes. It's still really rough but I feel it needs more eyes than mine. Anyone else want a go? Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223 you've insisting on the elimination of any mention in the body that the former mayor of Chicago being hired to investigate? The degree you are cutting is verging into whitewashing. SecretName101 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Need to comment that every controversy should be widely reported by RSes per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; not just documenting exclusive reports by WGN or a local news source. Given the sheer amount of controversies surrounding Henyard, WP:WEIGHT should be steered towards more prominent sources than Illinois Answers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I think the presence of a former mayor being maybe brought in to investigate her was simply unnecessary salacious detail and, frankly, per the sources a violation of WP:CRYSTAL since it's unclear whether she actually will be involved to any significant degree. I believe I also noted that removal with WP:TOOSOON in my edit summary. But I would suggest centralizing this conversation at the article talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * T@Simonm223 The town board voted yesterday to hire her (with Lightfoot indeed present and accepting). She's the former mayor of Chicago. That is highly notable and tangable. You are either mis-judging or intentionally whitewashing. SecretName101 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is edging to a WP:AGF. Violation here. I literally hadn't heard of Henyard before seeing this mess of a BLP violating article. I'm just trying to clean the crap up but I'm thinking that WP:TNT may be required if you will get this heated over what was, frankly, a light touch cleaning out the cruft. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Simonm223 No, it is not assuming bad faith to acknowledge that you are either mi-judging or intentionally misacting. I assert neither is the more likely motivation. That's not assuming bad faith. SecretName101 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please redact your claim that I am intentionally white-washing this article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I never claimed you were. I said that’s one of two (or more) possible things that might be going on. You excluded from your quoted excerpt my mention that a valid explanation is that you are simply making (good faith) misjudgments. Please do not mischaracterize/ selectively quote my comments in a manner that misframes them. SecretName101 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Either way, it's a form of deflecting. It's deigned to take the focus off the real issues, but (to Simonm) that only works if you let it. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. If this person was hired yesterday, then there is nothing encyclopedic to even tell yet. Not everything reported in the news is worthy of being in an encyclopedia, and especially when it comes to breaking news. We need stuff that will pass the ten year test. This reminds me a lot of the Kate Middleton article at the top of this page, except at least that one was readable. When summarized properly, that entire article was able to be condensed to a couple of short paragraphs in the main article. Much the same needs to be done in this article, except this is the main article. Yet as far as I can tell the best solution is basically the same. It would be far, far easier to simply TNT it and start over from scratch than to even attempt to fix what is there, because it's that much of a dumpster fire. Zaereth (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The opening of the investigation itself is indeed noteworthy. You are making mis-judgements, and elsewhere Simonm223 has stated that their rationale is a personal dismissal/judgement of the investigation as a "publicity stunt". SecretName101 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Eventually one tires of saying WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOTNEWS constantly and feels a need to point out why these policies apply. Your cries of "bias" don't change that. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

What constitutes a public figure
So working on Tiffany Henyard has me wondering what constitutes a public figure. Because it seems clear from review of the sources that Henyard is notorious but what she's notorious for is entirely coextensive with the various things she's been accused of doing. If Henyard is only a public figure by dint of being accused of a bunch of things then it almost seems like we shouldn't be covering her on Wikipedia. However if her status as a public figure is because she's a mayor then we have a smaller problem but still a problem. That is that her controversies are the entirety of her page. And they're extensive and heavily detailed. This raises the question of WP:DUE. I'm curious to see if we can find reasonable comparables. I found one but it was a much shorter page about a municipal politician who was convicted of crimes rather than merely accused of them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't think she's a public figure because of her alleged crimes. But I think her being an elected mayor means she is a public figure "" Note this doesn't mean she is notable as plenty of public figures are not notable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. The term "public figure" is actually a legal term that was defined by the Supreme Court back in 1964, although it has been around since the 1700s. The definition is very specific and applies to Wikipedia and its authors just as much as it does to newspapers and journalists. The reason is because a public figure cannot sue for libel or defamation whereas a private individual can, and the laws recognize this. This especially applies to politicians, because there's an overriding "public need to know", so while actors and rock bands must rise to the level of celebrity to be considered a public figure, anyone holding a public office is automatically given that status.


 * That said, I'll reiterate what I said above. I think the easiest way to fix this article is to WP:Blow it up and start over. I don't necessarily mean delete the article, but in that the text is just too far gone to fix. It'd be far easier to fix it by wiping the slate and starting from scratch. List only those allegations that have been widely covered and have some kind of significance, with facts, a point, and everything, and leave all the mudslinging in the campaign ads where they belong. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize in advance for my peevery, but Zaereth, I agree almost entirely with you both on the policy and the best path forward. I do need to just slightly correct that, for the United States, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan did not say that public figures cannot sue, they made the standard much more stringent, by creating the actual malice standard (which, of course, has nothing to do with malice).  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize. Your input is always valued. That's actually true, because of course anything can be taken too far and cross the line, but I was trying to keep my reply short so I guess I glossed over that. Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have trying to fix that mess on my long-list of things to get around to but I want to be cautious and patient here so feedback on this is really valuable. Simonm223 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * She's definitely a public figure. WP:LOWPROFILE is clear that a key point for whether someone is a public figure or not is whether they seek fame; seriously running for mayor (especially successfully, but probably even if it had been unsuccessful) would normally make one a public figure in that regard. The article is still clearly placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on the accusations against her and minutiae related to them that have received relatively minimal coverage, but the standard it needs to be trimmed down to is clearly the one in WP:PUBLICFIGURE and not WP:NPF. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Anatole Klyosov
Notice that the page on Russian scientist Anatole Klyosov contains politically charged comments about his work which are borderline slander. It is quite possibly grounds for defamation. You cannot just publish such comments without being a willing eco chamber for libel. That section must be edited asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1946 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, . You will need to be much more specific. The article summarizes this article, and Foreign Policy is a reliable source. Please also familiarize yourself with No legal threats, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * He was a mainstream and well-respected scientist in the past and described as such on the page. However, after 2008 he proposed some "theories" (e.g. "white race" originating from Slavs) that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists. That is well-sourced and reflected only in a couple of paragraphs on the page. This is fully consistent with our WP:BLP policy. In fact, an effort was made to describe him in the most favorable fashion on that page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Cullen328 77.100.225.124 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your sentence ' ... after 2008 he proposed some "theories"... that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists ' is so politically charged and judgemental that I realize it is pointless continue arguing. Let me just say that scientific opinion is gradually accepting many of his ground-breaking research. Keep your toxic so-called article and be happy. Peace. Ps1946 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what any of that has to do with politics, but we include peer reviews and opinions of significant people in the scientific community, both good and bad. The reality about science is that, despite all our vast knowledge, we really know nothing. Ignorant people are the ones who think we have it all figured out, but it's similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who don't know don't have enough knowledge to realize what they don't know, and the universe is small and simple to understand. But the more you learn the more questions you have, until one day you realize that all science is built on a vast web of guesses and theories that will one day be proven wrong. As Richard Feynman said, "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything... I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb."


 * Just look at history. Many of the greatest scientists were considered pseudoscientists in their time. Antoine Lavoisier was laughed at and even had his life threatened for promoting the oxygen theory of combustion. Thomas Young was beaten up for his theory that light was a wave. Alfred Wegener became the laughing stock of the scientific community for his theory of plate tectonics. Today, long after their death, these are considered some of the greatest scientists, but at the time they were considered pseudoscientists, and if Wikipedia existed back then we would reflect that in their articles. Now I don't know the first thing about this subject, but if some of his work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, then we are bound to say so in his article. Simple as that. In the future, if his work becomes accepted, then we will reflect that if and when it happens, but not before. But the reality is that any great leaps in science began by studying the fringes and challenging the accepted theories of the time, so the greatest scientists of today were the pseudoscientists back then. But we can only go with what we have right now and wait to see what the future holds. Zaereth (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ps1946. Of course there are topics like Genetic genealogy and Genealogical DNA tests that are very much mainstream (DNA genealogy currently redirects to population genetics). However, these mainstream concepts and techniques have been developed by people other than Klyosov. He has nothing to do with them. I understand that his "DNA genealogy" is something different, on the subject of "Slavic Arians". To be honest, I did not get what it is exactly. Russian version of his BLP page says his theory "is a mixture of biochemistry, history, linguistics and chemical kinetics". Wow! You might wish to contribute to his BLP page some content that would be consistent with our policies and explain what his theory was about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Sion Sono
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sion_Sono#Edit_Request

We suggest that the source is not a reliable source, is insufficient, and should be removed in accordance with the WP:BLP policy.

Reason : Wikipedia's BLP policy states, "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."
 * The cause of suicide is unknown, and no information exists anywhere to determine the cause of suicide.
 * Writing on this page suggests that Sion Sono is the cause, and lacks fairness and neutrality.
 * The information source linked as a source is "Shūkan Bunshun". It's tabloid journalism and not a reliable source of information.
 * The source article is not open to the public. that is insufficient information source.
 * The Wikipedia BLP policy states the following:
 * ”contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.”

We kindly ask for your cooperation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Min01f (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It is indeed a tabloid (I am aware of it, never read it before, but did read it now without translation). The tabloid is not a reliable source. The text was not supported by any other source. I removed both. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PS. Who is "we"? It looks like you might want to read WP:COI. Depending on your situation, you may need to disclose your particular relationship with the subject or with a group (each time you post a new discussion or join an existing one). JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * JFHJr, Thank you for your cooperation.
 * Sorry, I was wrong. The correct word is "I", not "We".
 * I didn't understand English very well. In most cases, I translate and read.
 * Thank you for your comment. Min01f (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Alleged prison escape of Daniel Khalife
A move request in relation to this article could have BLP and legal implications. PatGallacher (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The move is just fine. The subject, a detainee, was found outside of detention per multiple reliable sources. Sue us. JFHJr (㊟) 00:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also... The escape was only *alleged* perhaps while he was unaccounted for, before apprehension outside detention. I realize escape is also a crime he is charged with, but we have to use plain English in titles, and if the event is notable, then the move is a good idea. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Without comment on the requested move; the topic itself seems to impact poorly with WP:NOTNEWS. Rotary Engine talk 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. That's why I piped to WP:BLP1E in my response. Personally, I'd rather not go for the jugular until the page is settled in its spot. JFHJr (㊟) 01:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree. BLPE1E, but I think BLPCRIME also applies. I know he was caught red-handed escaping, but we can't really tell that story without discussing why he was in jail in the first place. Those are some pretty stigmatic charges he hasn't been convicted of. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If alleged events lead to detention (CRIME, 1E), and an independently notable escape and capture occur (superseding, let's say), what result? I think CRIME means minimizing the WP:WEIGHT of text describing the background of the escape. In the present edition, that comprises about a third of the text, perhaps less. If you'd like to excise more, I might agree. But it seems pretty concise and neutrally worded to me. I think we'll only know definitively how CRIME applies once court finishes. JFHJr (㊟) 02:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the current article is trying to thread the needle by taking the absolutely bonkers stance that he only allegedly escaped and was allegedly on the run, and yet saying in wikivoice that he was recaptured. So the article would have us believe that it is possible that he was simultaneously in Wandsworth Prison 14 miles away on the Grand Union Canal towpath in Northolt. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Why is this even an article? Non-notable person, no clear long-term importance. Failure to meet NEVENT and NOTNEWS. --M asem (t) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)PatGallacher
 * That may or may not be so and BLP1E/BLPCRIME may well be relevant. But,, why on earth is there an issue about taking "alleged" out of the article title. In your oppose on the talk page you refer to "legal" and "BLP" issues preventing the move. They might be relevant to whether the article should exist - but the escape happened. There's no doubt about that. Can you explain the issue you have with taking out "alleged" from the article title. DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Ben Zimmer
Ben Zimmer is an American linguist, lexicographer, and language commentator. I came across this biography as I recently AfD'd an article from the page creator. A cursory browse of the references section suggests the article presents considerable issues requiring clean-up, if an experienced editor has some time to expend. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon ( he/him • ☎️) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Will Fowles
An editor has started a discussion at Talk:Will Fowles about whether a section of text in the article covering sexual assault allegations should be expanded upon. Experienced editors are invited to participate. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 07:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * We have to be very careful about walling off something in its own section, because that can create an imbalance by giving much more emphasis to it than is due. It's similar to the way newspapers use headlines to emphasize a story. Controversy sections, for example, do this by pigeonholing any negative information in a single section instead of distributing within the timeline of events.


 * In discussing what is due weight for the information, well that's more of a simple math problem than anything else, in figuring out percentages. It's necessary to weigh all the sources that exist about a subject against the sources containing the particular information, factoring in the weight of the sources themselves and how much they devote to the particular info, and with that determine just what percentage of the article should be devoted to that information in terms of space. Does it deserve an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence, or would even that be too much? That is best done by those who have read and are familiar with all the sources, and that's what the talk page discussion should be focused on.


 * I will say that the other user in that discussion seems hell bent on including the word "arrest", as if it has some significance. In Australian law, just as in the US, and arrest occurs when "police take hold of you; or, police tell you that you are under arrest; or, you are arrested by written warrant." It's usually a part of the normal procedure of being taken in for questioning but, of course, it doesn't mean guilty, although to those who don't know enough to know better it may insinuate that, so it seems a bit sensationalist. But the significant information is what caused his resignation, and the rest is basically, "they asked him questions, let him go, and nothing happened" which sounds pretty insignificant when spelled out like that, doesn't it? The more important thing is to get the weight and balance correct and focus on the significant aspects of the story. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @SpringStreetUpdates, the editor above has some well said words. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I do agree actually, that makes sense. The fact of an arrest itself isn't necessary information for an encyclopedia, it adds weight to the seriousness of the sexual assault allegation and gives reasoning for inclusion of the allegation/investigation/outcome but is not a paramount detail.  SpringStreetUpdates (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

BLP-related AfD notice
Of possible interest to BLPN watchers: Articles for deletion/Wardrobe malfunction (2nd nomination). &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:35, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Marty Small Sr.
Concerns about repeated addition of content that looks WP:UNDUE. Subject has an arrest record without convictions. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the unsourced/poorly sourced information, and will try to keep an eye on it. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  03:12, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Simon Williams (chess player)
Hi, I’d like to ask for some comments on a contentious matter relating to the article for Simon Williams (chess player).

The subject of the article is a minor chess grandmaster (currently rated 1,303rd in the world), and also a youtube streamer and chess author. He is relatively well-known in chess circles, but is by no means a public figure under the Wikipedia definition of that term.

In the recent past Williams was mentioned in a determination by the UK pensions regulator re: some events that occurred while he was the trustee of a pension scheme. This has received a limited amount of press coverage, which has prompted some discussion on the talk page for Wiliams re: whether or not the matter should be mentioned in the main article.

(It’s not really relevant to the underlying issue here, but some of the edit summaries / talk page comments in relation to this matter miscategorise the events in question as ‘fraud’. The pensions regulator’s involvement was actually solely in relation to the way in which the scheme was administrated and did not relate to fraud.)

In trying to resolve whether or not some reference to these events should be included in the main article I checked the guidelines on biographies of living persons. To the best of my understanding, the relevant section would appear to be under WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE:

"Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, regardless of whether they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability".

In the case in point I’m interpreting that as meaning that for a minor chess grandmaster we only include ‘material relevant to their chess career'. On that basis it seems (to me at least) that the matter described above should not be in the article, even if it has had limited coverage in broadsheet newspapers.

I have no connection to the subject, just giving my interpretation of the relevant guidelines. Am I correct? Any assistance gratefully received. Axad12 (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Bilorv's version of the material (diff) seems fine. I think given the in-depth coverage in Financial Times and The Times, it should be okay to include. WP:BLPCRIME may advise us to err against including this kind of information for people who aren't public figures, but I don't see that as being intended for someone who's getting this kind of coverage, and additionally William's career as a streamer/commentator/selling chess courses kind of relies on him being a public figure to an extent, at least in the chess world. Perhaps less importantly, it seems like there isn't actually an accusation of criminal wrongdoing here, so there may be less of a BLPCRIME concern. I think as long as the article is based on the FT and Times articles and not the primary source Ombudsman report, it's fine. Endwise (talk) 05:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts here. You've put your finger on what seems to be the key point, which is...
 * Does being relatively well known in a pretty obscure subculture make someone a public figure (and no longer subject to WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE)?
 * I'd imagine that in the UK fewer that 0.1% of people are even vaguely aware of Williams' chess-related activities (and even fewer elsewhere), so I'm struggling to see how he constitutes a public figure by any normal definition of that term.
 * If somebody could clear this up for the sake of my understanding it would be appreciated. Axad12 (talk) 05:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Williams is certainly a "public figure" in the sense of Wikipedia jargon. He has sought attention through his role in the ECF, courses, books, commentary etc. He promotes himself through the name "GingerGM". This doesn't mean he is "famous": he doesn't have to be someone that 0.1% of Brits are aware of because that's not related to the criteria. A lot of people misunderstand what "public figure" (or synonymously, "high-profile") means in Wikipedia jargon. It doesn't even require a figure to be notable: Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable.The text I wrote wasn't intended to accuse Williams of criminal wrongdoing and describes factual events with quotes on his behalf. I think it's quite a generous framing, backed up with substantial coverage to show this is encyclopedic content. Apologies for not realising there was related discussion on the talk page and thanks for bringing this to BLPN. — Bilorv ( talk ) 07:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I take your point re: seeking out media attention, but my assumption is that the quote you give is intended to refer to media attention with rather greater exposure than low circulation industry/hobby publications.
 * Simon Williams' chess-related activity has never been covered in any form of media beyond chess magazines and chess websites and, to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't sought to promote himself outside of that very small pond.
 * There are a huge number of individuals who maintain some form of youtube presence to assist with sales of books, DVDs, etc. on niche subjects (chess openings in Williams' case), but I'm far from convinced that that constitutes 'seeking out media attention'. Axad12 (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * To give a comparable example, if an individual had a youtube channel about fishing and used it to leverage sales of their own brand of fishing bait, I don't think there would be any suggestion that they were seeking out media attention. Axad12 (talk) 08:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with Endwise. It's a little unfortunate it's a separate section, but it doesn't really fit in an existing section. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that I’m very much in the minority here, and also less experienced than the other users to have commented. However, I’d really be grateful for some clarification of how Williams’ rather small-time activity to promote his books etc solely within chess circles constitutes ‘seeking media attention’.
 * If it doesn’t constitute seeking media attention then it still seems to me that WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies and the pensions material doesn’t belong in the article.
 * By comparison, if the 1,303rd ranked golfer in the world was censured by an ombudsman for his performance while doing a part-time job, I hardly imagine the matter would even be up for discussion. Axad12 (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He's seeking media attention, yes, within the context of the sport he participates in. I don't like the jargon "public figure" and "low-profile" but that's what we use and the examples given at Who is a low-profile individual of low-profile individuals are people who are unwittingly or unknowingly wrapped up in something, or only speaking on behalf of an organisation. He's not reached his position (of being somewhat well-known among the English-speaking chess world) unwittingly. Williams has successfully created a persona and brand, within the world of chess, with the name "GingerGM"—presumably because only the very top players in the world can make a living from chess competitions but many more strong players can make a living from coaching, courses, commentary etc. — Bilorv ( talk ) 13:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * (A bit late, but) I have no idea who the 1303rd ranked golfer in the world is, but they likely have a lower profile than Simon Williams, for a similar reason that the 1302nd ranked chess player also likely has a lower profile than Simon Williams. Endwise (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The section was balanced, factual, and supported by high-quality sources. It should be restored. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but none of that is relevant if WP:NOTAPUBLICFIGURE applies... Axad12 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * “It could be harmful to my reputation to have my misdeeds, which are much better sourced than any other part of my biography, described neutrally and accurately” is a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD), but it is not a general shield that prevents the inclusion of neutral and accurate information that happens to reflect negatively on article subjects. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are suggesting that I am Simon Williams then I'm afraid that you are (a) wrong, and (b) making a serious allegation of COI which is frankly ridiculous. However, well done for having the courage to make the allegation while hiding behind an IP address. Axad12 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As you did not create this article I can't see how you can possibly interpret the IP's comments as suggesting that you are Simon Williams. Back to the matter at hand, without taking any view as to what if anything should be said on the pensions thing, it seems to me that Williams clearly is not a low-profile individual as that term is defined by Wikipedia at WP:LPI, and therefore, WP:NPF does not apply to him. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was working on the basis of the comment 'a good reason for marginally notable people not to create Wikipedia pages about themselves (and feel free to send this article to AfD)' - which implies that I have some kind of COI here and might wish to take the extreme course of trying to get the article deleted.
 * Also on the basis that a different IP user has previously accused me (on the article talk page) of pursuing this issue in bad faith and of being a sockpuppet.
 * However, I have no particular views on Simon Williams either pro or con. I've only ever been attempting to get clarification on the correct application of the relevant policy.
 * I'm very grateful for your comment above (and also for the recent comment by ) in clarifying that my understanding of the relevant policy was faulty. I will now take the issue back to the article talk page to discuss the best form of words for the issue to be included in the article. Axad12 (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if the article creator is the subject but it's very common for article subjects and others with a CoI to create articles at a time when the promotional coverage is considered useful and then later it becomes a problem for them when something on them blows up. We non-CoI editors need to deal with it as we can when we become aware there are issues, which can including sending the article to AfD if the subject doesn't seem notable. Assuming there is reason to think it may have been the subject who created the article, it's perfectly reasonable to acknowledge these 2 common trends. Even if the original CoI editor is still around, we don't want them making more problems by sending the article to AfD. That should be decided by non-CoI editors only. So if the IP was suggesting you had a CoI but should send the article to AfD frankly they should be ignored. But I see nothing in their comment to suggest they intended to suggest that you seem to be connecting those two related but distinct points in a manner that wasn't intended. (Per WP:BLPREQDEL the subject's opinion may be relevant, but it should still be non CoI editors deciding whether it's even worth discussing.) Nil Einne (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. The IP comment that you are referring to was clearly inferring that the subject created the article (the basis for which suggestion seems entirely unclear), and/or that I might wish to refer the article to AfD if I had a COI and found the contents of the article inconvenient in some way.
 * Since the discussion up to that point had related solely to a policy question I hardly see why the IP user thought it necessary to make any suggestion of possible COI in relation to this article.
 * I've removed the pension-related issue from the article on, I think, 3 different occasions over recent months - but surely the discussion on the article talk page and my decision to bring it here to get a consensus decision demonstrates that I've been acting in good faith. So, again, why was there any need for the IP edit to bring COI into the discussion at all? And since I was the only user in favour of removing the material, who could he have been referring to except for me? Axad12 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My purpose in bringing the issue here was to get guidance on the correct interpretation of the relevant policy. Which you have received ; and now because you don't like the answer you are engaging in extremely heavy deflection. --100.36.106.199 (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC) I retract this part of my statement, as it seems the edit has been reinstated and you have stated you don't object to that. I'm sorry you are so worked up about things I didn't say, that wouldn't make sense if I had said them; since the substantive question is settled in what I consider the appropriate way, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, I couldn't be less invested in the outcome, hence my genuine thanks above to Bilorv and Caeciliusinhorto, which I'm happy to repeat. I'm very glad indeed to see that there is consensus and resolution - which is what I came here for.
 * Your introduction of COI into the discussion, on the other hand, was entirely uncalled for (as was your misguided ad hominem comment directly above). Axad12 (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Dominic Ng
There have been past attempts to WP:WHITEWASH Dominic Ng, including by paid editors who were subsequently discovered, and it would be good to get more eyes on this to see if there is presently an attempt to whitewash it. - Amigao (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * There is also an attempt to censor the Cantonese-language name from a very prominent figure in the Chinese-American community, which seems bizarre for a BLP. Anyone encountered this sort of thing before? - Amigao (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to gain consensus for disputed edits for inclusion per WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I would support including the name in the article. However from my experience it's hardly uncommon that editors insist such inclusions are generally unnecessary on the English wikipedia, for people who live in an English speaking country or even feel that their are "othering" the person. In this case it's complicated by the fact he doesn't seem to use his Chinese give name in English but does I assume use it in Chinese. But still seems a fair chance this remains an issue of editors disagreeing on whether the English wikipedia needs such details. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Spencer
An IP has added content which violates BLP guidelines, specifically unsourced allegations of sexual abuse. I've reverted, but it probably needs to be scrubbed from the history. Similar allegations about this person go back a long way, but reliable sources are rarely, if ever, added. It's a difficult case for various reasons, but I thought I'd bring it here for admin attention. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Schneider
EDIT: Fixed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I work with Andrew Schneider and can confirm that the photo featured in [| this page] is not him.

The man in this photo is the Andrew Schneider that the above page is referring to.

The erroneous photo is the first image that appears when "Andrew Schneider showrunner" is searched, which has caused confusion at times.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EliJarmel (talk • contribs) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Emil Pagliarulo
At no point did Emil "attack" Starfield's players. He posted claritifications about game development after being the subject of intensive harassment and hate online - harassment which took place shortly after his sister's death. The wording on the following sentence is highly misrepresentative of what he said:

"After the game's mixed reception after launch and further souring in reviews post launch, Pagliarulo attacked the game's players, stating they where "Disconnected from the Realities of Game Developing."

He also didn't "attack" negative reviews. The source provided in the article itself makes that clear.

″Specifically, Pagliarulo attacked negative reviews asking for features common in more modern RPGs that were noticeably absent from Starfield.″

The source used in the article itself makes it clear that Emil isn't wrong about the process being hard, and that he perhaps stirred up the pot unnecessarily:

"Ultimately, Pagliarulo's not wrong. Even getting a small indie project from concept to launch is a Herculean feat, and as much as the "lazy developers" trope has taken hold in recent years, the reality is that just about everyone involved in making a game is fully committed and working hard to make it happen. It really is, as Pagliarulo said, just about a miracle that a lot of these games ever see the light of day."

https://www.pcgamer.com/starfield-design-director-calls-out-unfair-game-criticism-dont-fool-yourself-into-thinking-you-know-why-it-is-the-way-it-is/

The wording on Emil's article is unnecessarily aggressive, not to mention based on false information, directly feeding hateful discourse around game developers online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.0.171.152 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Max Lugavere
I would like to raise the following talk page topic for review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Max_Lugavere#%22Known_for_Fringe_Dietary_Claims%22

To summarize, the statement in the article's infobox that Lugavere is primarily "Known for" specifically his "Fringe Dietary Claims" appears to be unsourced.

I believe we need a reliable source(s) that we can clearly attribute to the specific assertion of being primarily known for "fringe dietary claims" or the contentious statement should be revised/removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kalem014 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Aaron Maté
The introduction to this article is filled with contentious and potentially libellous material which is very poorly sourced - almost exclusively from The Jewish Chronicle, a paper widely known for aggressive smears against it's political opponents.

, as per the BLP policy, is repeatedly by  editors.

Please consider protecting this page from further vandalism and smears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peirik1 (talk • contribs)
 * The Jewish Chronicle, per WP:Perennial sources, is judged as "generally reliable". The material in question (Maté's reporting on the use of chemical weapons in Syria) is sourced to The Guardian (also considered generally reliable) and Monthly Forecast, a publication of an organization known as Security Council Report, an independent organization that monitors and reports on activities of the United Nations Security Council. The material to which you object may not be pleasant, but it is backed by reliable sources. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:25, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I repeat what I wrote on the talk page: the listing for The Jewish Chronicle on WP:RSP that source specifically says:
 * "There is no consensus on whether The Jewish Chronicle is reliable for topics related to the British Left, Muslims, Islam, and Palestine/Palestinians; there is also a rough consensus it is biased in these topics."
 * To therefore suggest that this source is in any way reliable about a far-left blog like The Greyzone, is borderline ridiculous.
 * Regarding the Guardian source I refer to my other comments on the talk page. Peirik1 (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The Jewish Chronicle is used to cite the fact that Maté works for The Grayzone. Your edits don't dispute that fact; you've left that fact in your version of the article. So what's the problem? If your problem is with the characterization of The Grayzone as supportive of Russia, Syria and China, there are multiple sources cited to verify those claims. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Alice Evans
Per, am I reasonably right, or is "former" actress ok? Subject has opinion:


 * A non-working actor who is available for casting is still an actor, just as a writer whose latest book has failed to find a publisher is still a writer. She will be "former" only if she indicates in some way that she is no longer seeking roles.... and taking some other job does not count as an indication, for out here in the Los Angeles area, many a job is filled by those with screen credits past and upcoming. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:13, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have now requested to have the page semi-protected. While most of the good edits of late have been from IPs, so have the bad ones, and with the article running it risks becoming a madhouse anyway. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Concerns Over Source Reliability and Verification in the 'Lifestyle' Section of Ed Young's Article
Issue Overview: The "Lifestyle" section of Pastor Ed Young's Wikipedia article primarily relies on an investigative report from WFAA, which is secondarily supported by a Dallas News article. The latter mainly references the former, raising concerns about the independence and verification of the information presented.

Concerns: Source Reliability and Independence: The primary source, WFAA, relies on anonymous sources and lacks substantial corroborative evidence. The Dallas News article does not independently verify the claims but simply references the WFAA report, raising questions about its independence and the verification of its content. 5dondons (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The source from Dallas News is an op/ed column which I wouldn't call a reliable source. It's written in a narrative style, which in itself makes it suspect. Same reason we don't use Forensic Files or Ken Burns documentaries as sources, but if you look closely you can see the author injecting their own opinions. The News 8 (WFAA-TV) source is a well-written news article, and I see no reason it shouldn't be used. Of course, there's a matter of due weight and balance to consider, but I see no reason the source can't be used. Zaereth (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. I agree the Dallas News article's narrative style and op/ed nature make it less suitable as a reliable source for factual content in addition to using the WFAA as its source for the contentious material, particularly in a biography of a living person.
 * Regarding the WFAA article, while it is well-written, I agree we must consider the due weight and balance. The reliance of a single source for potentially contentious material in a BLOP is problematic.
 * Given these points, we should continue to seek additional independent verification. If we are unable to find additional support for these claims, we may need to reevaluate its inclusion. 5dondons (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hipal doesn't agree its an op/ed however I do, and listed the reasons it is in a reply to him. To address his concern about it being used as a source for other pieces of the article, i have since found new sources for those pieces. I will give more time for other seasoned editors to weigh in however with only 1 source being used for contentious material I don't find grounds for due weight and I believe it should be removed entirely. 5dondons (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The initial source is legit, the second source is not an op/ed but a lifestyle piece, but all it does is confirm that those things were said. As the sentence stand, it's not even an accurate reflection of the source material, as neither source claims that the jet was purchased by the subject or his church; one source says "operated by", the other says it was leased
 * We do have enough to say that he was criticized for living a lavish or expensive lifestyle, and the second source citing the first shows that that criticism was seen as significant, but the details are a problem. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * While the clarification on the nature of the sources is helpful, it underscores a fundamental issue: the existing sources do not robustly support the claims made in the "Lifestyle" section of the article. The distinction between "operated by," "leased," and "purchased" significantly affects the factual accuracy of the claims related to Ed Young's lifestyle.
 * Furthermore, the narrative style of the Dallas News piece and its reliance on the WFAA report, which itself uses anonymous sources, raises concerns about the overall reliability and independence required for such content in BLOP to ensure it does not perpetuate potentially misleading or unsupported claims. 5dondons (talk) 14:33, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Can a source be counted as 'reliable' if it does not add any additional information on the topic but solely quotes another source? All the Dallas News source does is verify that the WFAA article was written. 5dondons (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. it is reliable for the fact that the WFAA makes its claims, and an indicator that the WFAA coverage is of interest. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources.. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the linked references are used in the article. Why they being brought up rather than the ones in use?

I cannot access either of them. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * My apologies, these are the articles I was referring to, they are the ones sourced on the page:
 * WFAA - https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/prominent-grapevine-pastor-linked-to-luxury/287-338287756
 * Dallas News: http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_December/pastored/ 5dondons (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks like user Zaereth clicked the links within the actual article and was able to access them from there. His points should still carry weight. 5dondons (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.
 * I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Zaereth read the article from the source on the main page. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the Dallas News articles source for the information included in ‘Lifestyle’ section comes directly from the WFAA source without adding any additional sources. 5dondons (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Just read the Dallas News article again and its definitely an op/ed. It uses a subjective tone, includes the author's opinions, and focuses on broader commentary about Ed Young's ministry practices. It opens with a personal anecdote and provides subjective analyses, such as saying Young "knows how to titillate and provoke." These elements, along with a lack of immediate newsworthiness, mark the piece as an op/ed rather than an objective news report. 5dondons (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No, that makes it a magazine-style article, which is an acceptable source. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

, could you respond to the arguments that the Dallas News reference that was actually being used in the article is not an op/ed? --Hipal (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Sunny Hostin journalist or commentator
The introduction to this article refers to Sunny Hostin as a journalist and I question that considering she never received a journalism degree, she never was a news anchor, or wrote for newspapers or magazines. She's been on TV as a political and social commentator and legal analyst. On her own website she refers to herself specially as being "widely known as a social commentator and has covered many of the major legal, political, and cultural community stories of today". It's more appropriate to describe her as a social commentator and/or legal analyst than a journalist. I know there are several sources which describe her as a "journalist" but I can't find any sources with evidence of her journalism career. There needs to be a distinction between actual journalists and television personalities. The One I Left (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The relevant discussion can be found here. Thank you. KyleJoan talk 12:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems entirely reasonable to call her a journalist given that a wide range of RSes do. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:48, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm questioning whether we should rephrase to "legal journalist" per my reasoning on her talk pageThe One I Left (talk) 19:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 Wakeley church stabbing
We have editors continually restoring assertions in the infobox that the motive of this was "Islamic extremism", implying the suspect has committed a crime, despite the fact that no conviction has been made. They base this on a video produced by a witness claiming the attacker spoke Arabic. The police investigating the incident have said they believe it is religious extremism but have declined to state the religion. There have not been any charges made yet, let alone a conviction. Can we have more eyes there please. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ran across this on the way out of the door, but just wanted to suggest being mindful of 3RR since you are at 4 reverts so far of the info. I'm not saying you are right or wrong about the removal and am just making an observation.
 * Awshort (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

ravi ravindra
Hi, all - I've updated this page with more links and citations. Kindly suggest if there's something else that needs to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sankalprawal (talk • contribs) 04:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sankalprawal, I'm sorry but I've reverted your edit to Ravi Ravindra. Your edit added promotional language ("a prolific writer", "publishing numerous books", "numerous writings in academic publications", "well represented in the Theosophical literature"), too many publications (including what appear to be self-published works), links to lectures and interviews (many of which appear to be copyright violations), and also way too many external links.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We're here to dispassionately summarize what reliable, secondary, independent sources have written about the subject. That means reputable newspaper and magazine articles, book, and other sources about Ravi Ravindra. Those are the types of citations that the article needs. Woodroar (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

liang wang
vandalism to article and unsubstantiated allegations repeatedly inserted as if factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Womenwiki2050 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This user's only contributions to Wikipedia are on Liang Wang's article. There seems to be a conflict of interest. Womenwiki2050 keeps removing allegations which are now part of an ongoing story with responses by Wang's colleagues. The allegations are sadly germane to the article.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Trumpetrep, this edit you made does not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME. Kizer said that Wang handed her a drink that she later suspected was drugged. Neither the Vulture nor the NY Times references states that he allegedly drugged her when there's another person that could have done it during the night. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The disputed article is Liang Wang (oboist). However, it would be helpful to provide dif links to the disputed edits. In reviewing the misconduct allegations section, it's not clear if Wang should be considered a WP:PUBLICFIGURE v. WP:NPF Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * thank you for clarifying. the language is much more accurate. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * good point. may be NPF. Womenwiki2050 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The Mandela Catalogue
Should the recent controversy regarding the creator be mentioned in any way? Trade (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Is the controversy related to the web series or just the creator? Some links about this controversy would be helpful. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Link --Trade (talk) 15:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source. If there is only coverage by gossip or clickbait style sources, this controversy should not be on wikipedia at all. However, if there are RS about it, this controversy should only be mentioned if it impacts the show (like if advertisers withdraw). Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Ilyas Qadri
More eyes requested, especially regarding recent edits at criticism and terrorism sections, with WP:COATRACK, WP:OR and WP:BLP issues. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:05, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Nicki Minaj
Please change Nicki Minaj wikipedia profile picture to something more professional. I don’t understand why a screenshot shot from a video was used to be her photo when she has 100s of professional photos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C0:C000:C40:D44B:B6D0:163A:DAEC (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Becuse copyright. When it comes to living people and WP, the photographer has to "donate" it, or more formally release it under an acceptable license. Professional photographers want money for their work, and you can't blame them for that. More at WP:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sultan Al Jaber
Despite receiving attention on and off Wikipedia before and during COP28, there has been no update on Sultan Al Jaber to communicate the results of this event.

I would like to disclose my Conflict of Interest in regards to this article and request some changes to address missing information. I have proposed language on the Talk page for consideration, for which I would gratefully appreciate the review of people familiar with BLP policies to ensure the tone is totally neutral. Many thanks! Dedemocha (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is now live in the COI request queue but would definitely benefit from oversight by editors more familiar with editing BLPs. Dedemocha (talk) 14:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

living person biography for Carol Leeming
A draft entry for Carol Leeming is now in my Sandbox. Concerns are invited. I hope to publish this as an entry in Wikipedia later this week.

This is the link to my sandbox : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TrevorGlynLocke/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorGlynLocke (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Trevor Locke 22nd April 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrevorGlynLocke (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Read the comment at the top of the draft, added by Theroadislong 12 days ago. The draft is improperly formatted, cites improper sources, and is in no way ready to be made into an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know if she meets WP:N, but see WP:TUTORIAL on how to add references. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Here's a reference which, while not great, may move the notability needle just a little bit. Oh here's another one, slightly better but still saddled with being local coverage. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Katherine Maher
Why is the recent revelation of her using Wikipedia to benefit her own narrative not being disclosed on her Wikipedia page? There are multiple sources across the internet, as well as video interviews where she admits to censoring facts she doesn't like.

Even the original creator has spoken about the blatant misinformation and how Wikipedia can no longer be a trusted source of factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23EE:2978:14CD:C09D:B454:97E0:5873 (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You mean like this unsourced, propagandastic crap or this unsourced, propagandastic crap or this unsourced, propagandastic crap? You're defending blatant WP:BLP violations. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 17:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing that OP is referring to recent Fox News and New York Post  articles.  Obviously, New York Post is not a reliable source per WP:RSP, and Fox is problematic. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Fox is also an unreliable source because this falls into politics/science coverage. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  Source assessment notes 18:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do see some potential in cutting down the career section a little, to mostly what is present in secondary (and, implicitly, third-party) sources. Adding more primary sourced junk and opinion pieces is the exact opposite of appropriate though, and the frenzy surrounding it makes me disinclined to approach with the proverbial pole of significant length. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe just over 3 meters is traditional. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

The Three Degrees
This article is struggling with problems regarding sourced information about members with the names "Jessie Wagner" and "Tabitha King" joining and leaving, replacing member Helen Scott (who had COVID-19), and to prove that information, I began using henleystandard.co.uk and Instagram as sources. I am upset with User:SoulJapan's persistent removal of content and changing the name of Freddi Poole (even though her name is also spelled Freddie Pool). This has been going on for months and I have kept an eye on the page ever since 2023 because people continued to remove content, and it was semi-protected in December after I requested protection due to disruptive editing by IPs and persistent content removal. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * An Instagram account belonging to one member should not be cited to provide updates about other members of the group per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:INSTAGRAM it is okay to use it as a source sometimes to prove information, however it does not include events or any of that. It was an announcement to prove the statement I made, I did not make updates. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 23:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Only if the information is unambiguous and specifically about the owner of the instagram account. ie: "My birthday is today, April 24th." could possibly be used to support a subject's birthday, but a friend wishing him happy birthday could not. We can only use it to prove certain types of information that is specifically about the owner of the account. Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography has an RfC
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

oscar isaac
Hey! Hope this is the right spot ... Seeking to make simple reference to a publicly-available document, signed by Oscar Isaac, in the profile of Oscar Isaac. No socks here ... but getting bulldozed + threatened by an 'editor'.

Here's the 1-liner, available from any corner of the internet - it makes no accusation or claim for any side, only stating what is publicly known - he signed a letter, for a desired outcome, on a particular subject, due to specific events :

In October 2023, Isaac signed an open letter for the "Artists4Ceasefire" campaign alongside other artists, urging President Joe Biden to push for a ceasefire and an end to the killing of civilians amid the 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

NB:  The references - aside from the letter, which is NPR - to 'Artist4Ceasefire', 'Joe Biden', and the '2023 invasion of the Gaza Strip' all link within WIKI itself on their own / are held by WIKI.

Was immediately threatened by an editor claiming ownership of the profile (by tone + outright threat to permaban me), who said the sentence above is "contentious", that Wiki's "an encyclopedia, not FB or a news site". It's a public document that was purposefully sent to the White House/President. Yet this editor immediately threatened me with a permanent block just for *this single citation* - and I'm brand new, so there's no possiblity of "past differences".

Aggressive threatening of noobs aside, the challenge with their claim, is that tens of thousands of other WIKI profiles have the same/similar poli-social content with no hinderance ... permitting only what specific editor may prefer in a given page, on a platform that supposed to be "open, factual", an "encyclopedia of knowledge", is well, troublesome.

If it's not permitted to plainly reference actions they've chosen to publicly support - and do so with no ill inent/malice - then all public figures would need to have their profiles reduced to Name, DOB, Work history only: Michael Moore's profile must be emptied, and Mark Ruffalo, Michael Stipe, Bassem Youssef, Jon Stewart, Jimmy Carter, Nelson Mandela, Jon Oliver, George Galloway, Amy Schumer, Angelina Jolie, Michael Rapaport, Cate Blanchett, Ben Affleck, Chelsea Handler, Bradley Cooper, Bob Odenkirk, Bret Gelman, Debra Messing, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sharon Osbourne, Chris Pine, Jerry Seinfeld, Sinead O'Connor ... and so on, and so on.

Countless other WIKIs, artist/non-artist alike, reference social & policital efforts ... if a public person (Hollywood A/B lister, no less) has of their own accord chosen to put their name publicly on X document, it should not be prohibited from mere mention, since it's already on record with the rest of the world. Hiding it from Wiki could imply preferential treatment one way or another, no?

Sorry for the ramble I'm still getting used to this space, and am very confused by a person gatekeeping a stranger's own previously published actions being cited with zero harmful content & zero intent to harm.

Thanks for your patience!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discourseofcourse (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You were reverted by an administrator about this as WP:NOTNEWS. Please discuss this at Talk:Oscar Isaac and try to gain consensus whether this item is WP:DUE for inclusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a routine content disagreement, . I see no violation of WP:BLP policy here. There is certainly no need for a lengthy screed full of axe grinding and hyperbolic assertions. Your first step is to discuss the matter calmly with the editor who disagreed with you. This is a collaborative project. Have you tried that? Please remember that advocacy is not permitted on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 07:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that some of the claims being made here reflect not the Oscar Isaac article in particular, but responses Drmies gave on the user's talk page. Drmies was undoing the same flooding insertion on a number of pages, such as Rooney Mara and Rosario Dawson. Whether that qualifies for a "vandalism" warning is a separate question, but not a BLP one. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a lot of accusations and claims of harassment and whatnot. I asked them to stop, a few times. I remember being a new person in a new place, and I remember paying attention to what people were telling me and asking me, and not running around like a bull in a china shop. Drmies (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have been adding basically the same text to the pages of a whole bunch of the signers of that one petition. While there are a few signers who are separately called out in the NPR article, many are just listed among a mass of signers at the end. The source is not trying to tell us that this is a significant fact about the person, and generally an article about the person would not include that fact. We do not need a list of every document a person has signed. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Walter Rhodes (murderer)
I've twice restored the redirect at Walter Rhodes (murderer), following serious unsourced claims by editor User:WalterRhodesJr. A third revert would probably be allowable as a potential WP:BLP violation under WP:3RRNO, but taking it here seemed a better idea. Discussion at the editor's user talk is not currently making progress, and the article can't remain in its present state. The claims made are in direct contradiction to the sourced statement at target Jesse Tafero, which the same editor has also tried a few times to alter against the sources cited, in an apparently straightforward case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Wikishovel (talk) 08:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Is this individual of enough notoriety to warrant their own dedicated wiki page? Lostsandwich (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Should have updated this thread: the redirect was restored by another editor, and there's a discussion about whether to keep the redirect at WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024 April 22. Expanding the redirect into an article is an alternative, but so far it looks like per WP:PERP, there's not yet sufficient coverage or significance for a separate article. Wikishovel (talk) 07:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * So tired of all the comments since they make no sense. None of your replies are accurate. You cannot name a person as "murderer" when Walter Rhodes never killed anyone. He was forced to plead guilty "self´convict" so that he could testify in court and had nothing to gain from testifying. You should edit Michael Satz WP and add corruption, judicial misconduct ets. The investigation about him has proved that he had control over a judicial network that he did what ever he wanted to. Satz himself was corrupt and dangerous. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If Rhodes pled guilty to second degree murder and the court accepted his plea, then there is no policy violation in calling him a murderer unless a later court overturned that verdict. If reliable sources report that someone called "Satz" was corrupt and dangerous, then we can take a close look at that. But it can't be based on an unreferenced assertion by a family member. Cullen328 (talk) 07:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * WalterRhodesJr, please also understand that Wikipedia has policies about WP:Biographies of living persons, and to stick to those policies we have to be very careful about what we write. So it's no use for us to argue here about whether or not we believe evidence for one conclusion or another: we have to WP:Verify what we write, using WP:Reliable sources. Wikipedia also doesn't allow WP:Original research. Wikishovel (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Rhodes did´t kill anyone and was forced to take the plea. He had to self-convict in order to testify about the real killers. Thus, you cannot call him murderer. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You might well be right. But to write about that on Wikipedia, we need to WP:Verify it, using WP:Reliable sources. Otherwise it's WP:Original research. Wikishovel (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The argument that he's not a murderer because he pled out amounts to an argument-by-bizarre-definition if murder is what he pled to. It'd be akin to arguing that Ichiro Suzuki isn't a baseball player, he just hits balls with a stick and runs around a diamond-shaped field.
 * For another example of the argument you're making, Dog Chapman isn't a murderer, by your logic, since he was merely an unwitting getaway driver. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  AE thread summaries 15:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am right and there are so many court filings since the trial in 1976 that are factual and that proves he never killed anyone. That is why he cannot be called a murderer. The facts about gun residue at Taferos WP is wrong. The officers who investigated the gun powder residue concluded that Walter had gun residue from being fired at the road block, on the upper left hand, not on his right hand and Rhodes is right handed, so that information put on Tafero´s WP is misleading and wrong. I would like the link deleted and Walter Rhodes should not be refered to. Keep what ever you want on Tafero´s WP, exclude the Walter Rhodes (murderer) It need to be deleted. WalterRhodesJr (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Tim Davis (baseball)
is editing the article Tim Davis (baseball) by removing some negative information. I warned him of the issue of an involved person editing the page, but he edited it again, stating that the information was not true. I do not have knowledge as to whether the references that were supporting the allegations are correct or not, and am uncertain as to whether the allegations are important enough to be a part of the article, so I am bringing this discussion here for more knowledgable people to weigh in. I have notified of this discussion and have left his latest edits on the page stand pending any decision here. --— <b style="font-family:Papyrus;color:DarkSlateGrey;">rsjaffe</b> 🗣️ 21:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like alleged WP:BLPCRIME to me. Does it not to you? Assault, child abuse, what have you? Accusations of "corporal punishment" without parental permission looks like that to me. JFHJr (㊟) 23:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Very much agree with the WP:BLPCRIME take. These are allegations against a person no longer in the public eye and entirely unrelated to the source of his Wikipedia notability.  Definitely should not be in the article at this point, by my lights.  Happy Friday. Dumuzid (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dumuzid I've left an explanation on the article talk page. This discussion already existed there when this OP posted. Hopefully that's enough to discourage an edit war/3RR problem. But in that case, OP should take himself to WP:ANI. The user OP complained of is at 2R today. JFHJr (㊟) 00:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so he allegedly assaulted an 18 year old woman in the name of education and discipline. He was also a public figure for 3 years. Does that publicity go away if RSes still mention him as the former baseball player? The wikipedia article and the RSes didn't go away. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * He plays professionally for 3 years and is forever a public figure? That's rough. I don't see any indication he led a public life or sought publicity even during those 3 years. RS will of course mention his past. Does the accusation have anything to do with that notable past or his encyclopedic biography? Is the allegation of enduring biographical significance? Or is this WP:NOTNEWS? Does the coverage go beyond local? JFHJr (㊟) 01:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes, current job reported by multiple RSes so that's part of his encyclopedic biography. Who knows per WP:CRYSTAL. This is not routine news. Coverage went beyond local given that it was reported by a national education news site (The 74) that ended up being syndicated by Yahoo News. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly disagree that this person is a public figure at this point in time. I would exclude per WP:BLPCRIME unless coverage became overwhelming, as in, for instance, substantial coverage in papers of record.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:53, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * One of the sources referenced says In other words, the incident seems to have complied with the Florida regulations. Personally, I oppose school officials carrying out corporal punishment. But this content violates WP:UNDUE and WP:BLPCRIME. At this time, he is convicted of nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)