Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive359

Vaughan Gething
At Vaughan Gething, I changed the sentence "...first Black leader of any European country" to "...first Black leader in Europe" & then "...first Black leader within the United Kingdom". My reasons? it's best we not create the false impression that Wales is on equal footing with (for examples) Portugal, Spain, France, Romania, etc. Myself & are kinda in disagreement on this, due to the definition of country. IMHO, if we're going to keep the old sentence? Then we should (to avoid confusion with sovereign states) at least add a footnote, pointing out that Wales is within the UK. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't see what this has to do with the BLP noticeboard, which is for . Instead, perhaps start an RfC at Talk:Vaughan Gething. Curbon7 (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Vaughan Gething is a living person. GoodDay (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And? This is a grammatical dispute. Curbon7 (talk) 21:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The wording seemed simplest and most accurate before you touched it. Wales is not a sovereign nation, but it is a country in Europe. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * PS. In case it helps to change a few parameters to see how it sticks, how would it do with "xth Hindustani leader of a European y" if it were Scotland? Wouldn't the y be country (but definitely not today "nation" or "member state" of such and such)? JFHJr (㊟) 05:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Before I touched it, the sentence suggested that Wales was equal to France, Greece, Croatia, etc. Again, just because Wales (or Scotland, England, Northern Ireland) is called a country. That doesn't put it on equal footing with other countries outside the UK, in Europe. There's a difference. GoodDay (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Since we mention Wales in that very sentence, I don't see how it is likely to cause particular confusion. There's a difference between a Chihuahua and a St Bernard, but we don't need to footnote that every time we refer to either as a dog. Original wording is fine. (And in any case, this dispute is not tied to the living person-ness of the subject.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:33, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The canine comparison doesn't work, fwiw. Again, a footnote would be helpful, concerning the type of country Wales is. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Babu Singh Kushwaha
I'd be grateful if uninvolved editors with a familiarity of Indian news sources would be willing to take a look at recent editing at Babu Singh Kushwaha. There has been a spate of edit warring involving sockpuppetry there recently; the article is now protected, but the existing article makes some fairly major claims about the subject being responsible for some killings, and all based on a single source (the Indian Express). A second source is cited, but it doesn't support the assertion about the killings. WP:RSP has the Indian Express as generally reliable, so the content is probably legit, but I had to change the wording a bit (from 'he was alleged to have killed' to 'he was alleged to have been responsible for the killings') to make it align with the source, and I'd like more eyes on it. Girth Summit  (blether) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Wayans Family
The article includes personal information about a group of people from a family, some of whom are famous, with barely any source citrd supporting that information. This is especially problematic since some the people listed are minors. I’m very suspicious that not all of the information is even accurate. I already edit the article to remove a pair of siblings who allegedly were born just four months apart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvx1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is definitely a WP:BLPNAME problem with the unnotable members. I looked around for other famous families and found the Barrymore family which is in the same state. Unclear why these articles shouldn't be deleted. Wikipedia isn't ancestry.com. Compare the state of these articles to the The Osmonds, who were notable as a group. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've just removed all the non-notables from the Wayans family. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I support removing the not-yet-notable people from the article, but would oppose deleting the article. Cullen328 (talk) 03:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cullen328 on this one. Families can indeed be notable by having enough notable members. Notable members get included. Non-notable members may merit a single mention in the main member's article as WP:WEIGHT permits. Family articles should just exclude them. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 06:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made similar modifications to the Barrymore family article including removing the family tree since I haven't figured out how to make individual edits without breaking the tree. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Those family trees are a nightmare to edit. There's a tool at User:Daduxing/familytree.js which makes it somewhat easier Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Masayoshi Son
I have flagged the article on Masayoshi Son because it does not appear to offer a NPOV. My concern is that statements in the summary section and in the section on the Vision Fund are unbalanced and potentially libelous, as they overwhelmingly contain negative opinions on the subject's character. These editorialized, sometimes hyperbolic characterizations are restated verbatim to paint an overall negative picture of his reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farmlandsavannahpuck (talk • contribs) 00:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Uzair Shah
The article about Uzair Shah consists of two sentences but four photographs. I suggest to delete it, poor quality.--Crosji (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Wonderful idea! WP:Articles for deletion is where you want to be. JFHJr (㊟) 03:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The new discussion is here. Closing... JFHJr (㊟) 04:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Abdulla Bin Mohamed Bin Butti Al Hamed
As the subject of the information, I believe that certain details disclosed about me on Wikipedia infringe upon my privacy rights and may pose a risk to my personal safety. Furthermore, the information provided may be outdated, inaccurate, or irrelevant to the subject's notability. I respectfully request a discussion regarding the deletion or revision of this information to ensure that Wikipedia maintains its standards of accuracy, neutrality, and respect for individuals' privacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahmaddarwish74 (talk • contribs) 15:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That discussion ultimately starts and ends with "Got any third-party, non-routine, independent-of-you news/scholarly stories that discuss you at length, are written by identifiable authors, and are subject to rigourous editorial processes, including fact-checking?" The only way to get the information changed - especially if it's sourced - is to provide good sources to support those edits. We aren't otherwise going to change the article just because the subject tells us to, other than to remove unsourced content. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  AE thread summaries 16:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page, I believe the subject has asked for a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't know how significant the head of the Dept of Health is in Abu Dhabi. It looks like a bureaucrat position in a country that is smaller than many states in the United States. The problematic information he is referring to is a Voice of America report that references some Azerbaijani report. Given that it is a BLPCRIME/PUBLICFIGURE accusation it needs more than one reliable source, and I'm not sure VOA, the propaganda mouthpiece of the United States is one. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have removed the content about the Azerbaijan hunting incident because the implication of criminal misconduct does not seem to be backed up by reliable sources and the matter appears to have been resolved promptly by someone paying a small fine. Cullen328 (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The four sockpuppets claiming variously to represent and to be the subject have been blocked. Meanwhile, the AfD for this subject could use some WP:SNOW from an uninvolved admin or non-admin with credible permissions/experience. I'd do it, but I !voted. Thanks and cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 21:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Anton Kikaš
As a casual wikipedia user i came across this article: Anton Kikaš. From my non-expert perspective, this article appears to be in violation of BPL (but will defer to this group who may know better). I've added comments to the talk page (section "Required Factual Corrections") about some factual correction and have made one obvious correction to the article myself.

Looking at the original talk comments by creator I wonder:
 * whether this article should exist in the first place considering how poorly it is researched. Right now it does not serve as an accurate representation of what happened and is quite inaccurate.
 * if there is a valid reason for it to exist, I question the label "Known for	Arms smuggling" and other references throughout the article without supporting citations. Original author made conclusions regarding embargo based on a general sentence in a book which I corrected.  Considering this is a BPL topic I'd like to bring to your attention that content as is may be libelous.

Sharing this information here so that a competent editor may consider the issue and address in accordance with wikipedia's practices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.188.131.251 (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Cynthia Moss
The Wikipedia page for Cynthia J. Moss incorrectly shows my photo (Cynthia F. Moss), which should be replaced with a photo of Cynthia J. Moss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:4A86:CFC0:99CF:381E:4420:F706 (talk) 00:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. I have removed the image from Cynthia Moss as it's clearly incorrect. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The essay Don't build the Frankenstein is applicable to this situation, and is somewhat humorous. Wikipedia editors need to be very careful to avoid inflating different people who share the same or similar names. Cullen328 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Giulia Jones
I'm looking for opinions on recent edits at this article. Am I out of touch with current standards or are the edits by undue attacks? Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Agree the additions were probably inappropriate. One does not cite a BLP article to facebook, for one. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * (same person as the 2804:.. IPv6s who edited that article) The facebook-cited sentence was already in the article, they didn't add that. Their additions were  – 143.208.236.229 (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As Johnuniq knows, there was even worse stuff from the same editor at [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Cain_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=1219640252]. And generally, we should expect some nonsense for ACT politicians given the 2024 Australian Capital Territory general election will be happening sometime in the next few months so might be good for editors to keep an eye on their articles. Nil Einne (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Snezhana Abarzhi
Despite repeated requests not to do that, Snezhana Abarzhi continues to push claims of scientific priority in her article, through a proxy editor (an employee of the American Physical Society), sourced only to her own publications; see recent edits. The subject is notable but the recent edits are I think promotional and not good. I wish to disengage with this subject despite creating the article as she has been antagonistic by email and I have weak evidence that she has engaged in off-wiki harassment of me. Perhaps more eyes on the article would help? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not an experienced Wikipedian like most of the others who answer questions here but I am a scientist and from my vantage this page now reads more like a CV than a Wikipedia page other than the top level description. The "Selected publications" section should be removed IMO. Nnev66 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The main point of concern I have here is the lead section. Otherwise this looks like a fairly standard article on a contemporary researcher with a modest amount of citations and recognitions (which perhaps speaks to the poor quality of many other articles...). @Nnev66, the Selected publications are fairly standard - maybe it would be worthwhile to keep those that have been cited more and cut out the rest, but selected or influential publications are always helpful for articles like these to give readers an idea of what kind of specific research someone has published. This article has very little visibility but it did draw some attention to the absurd list of "influential people" on outline of fluid dynamics. Recon  rabbit  15:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment that an editor paid by the APS probably falls under WP:PAID. I don't see any disclosure.  The Selected Pubs does look overlong to me (though I agree a short section should be in the paper); it also looks like it might be skewed towards recent papers. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article Snezhana Abarzhi is weak on independent sources. There are papers by her, articles based on what she's said, and sources with no discussion of her. Maproom (talk) 15:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Clyde Drexler Gramatical Error
Clyde Drexler

Potential error in the opening section of Drexler's biography. Cites Drexler as a varsity baseball player as a sophomore, with an additional clause attached explaining he tried out for varsity yet missed the cut. This, to me, is misleading as it practically contradicts what was explained within the same sentence. I would edit it myself, but I don't have access to the referenced text and do not want to mislead readers by correcting a grammatical error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeppiK (talk • contribs) 20:40 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the article, in the "early years" section at the top of his page: "As a sophomore, he made the varsity baseball team, and tried out for the basketball team but failed to make the cut."
 * There's no issue here. The sentence talks about two different sports: it says that he was on the varsity team, but not the  team. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's not clear when he made his high school varsity basketball debut or if he only played for them his senior year. I should try to look this up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Mohammed Elshamy
May I submit a piece of information about this individual? He resigned from CNN because of anti-Semitic tweets. https://nypost.com/2019/07/26/cnn-photo-editor-resigns-after-anti-semitic-tweets-unearthed/  I am simply making a report. I leave it to the editors whether they want to add this to Mohammed Elshamy's page. Garyfreedman1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garyfreedman1 (talk • contribs) 15:46 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Probably not with that source, see WP:NYPOST. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Our page on Mohammed Elshamy makes no mention of CNN. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikilinks that make people look like jackoffs
I've seen a few people bring this sort of thing up over the last while -- I must confess I've forgotten which articles specifically, but it's happened enough times that I will just speak of it in a general sense.

What do we all think about the following phenomenon? Note that each individual step of this is compliant with all relevant policies.


 * 1) Joe Smith is a politician/historian/commentator/pundit/activist/etc. This is cited to reliable sources.
 * 2) Joe Smith is described, in the Wikipedia article, as "neo-purplist" or "far-mauve" or "forward-wing" or whatever. These labels are cited to reliable sources, which really do call him that thing.
 * 3) The terms are wikilinked to their respective articles.
 * 4) The articles about the terms ("neo-purplists" or "far-mauveism" or "up-wing politics") describe, broadly, the overall nature and activities of these ideologies and movements.

Again -- each of these steps is policy-compliant. However, they combine to produce a somewhat nasty result:
 * Anybody who mouses over the word "up-wing politics" on Joe Smith's article gets a popup with a photo of up-wingers setting a pergola on fire.
 * Anybody who decides to figure out what "neo-purplism" refers to will follow that link and read that neo-purplists believe in the transubstantiation of the Holy Pentinity etc etc.

This seems, to me, like the wikilinks cause our article to make (or at least heavily imply) all sorts of claims about Joe Smith that aren't supported by the sources. For all we know, Joe Smith is the bastion of the neo-purplist assembly's anti-Pentinitarian column, and he's the founder of the Up-Winger Pergola Respecters' Caucus.

Basically, our articles are written to describe central examples of a thing, rather than peripheral examples. To illustrate what I mean: Jesus of Nazareth, Napoleon Bonaparte, and Martin Luther were all outlaws (i.e. they all did things that were illegal, and were proscribed by the law as a result). But an article about outlaws, I hope you will agree, does not accurately convey information about what kind of guy Martin Luther was.

Is there anything we can do about this? To a first approximation, the most obvious thing would just be to avoid linking to labels like these in the leads of articles, although I'm not sure that this is the most effective strat. jp×g🗯️ 19:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, not anyone who mouses over -- I don't know whether it's a matter of platform or settings, but when I mouse over a wikilink, I don't get any picture in my pop-up, just the name of the page being linked to. And if such pictures are truly judged to be the problem, then I would prefer to eliminate pictures from pop-ups than to eliminate wikilinks. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a visual preview feature. Safari has it on iOS (iPhone default). Other browsers may make it available by just hovering the mouse. Disabling the preview option would impact lots more than just a mouse hover. I use the iOS visual preview feature a lot for articles that I'm not sure if I want to bother opening. It's a time-saver. JFHJr (㊟) 22:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a similar discussion on the MOS:BIO page related to terms like "convicted felon" that I think is related here. In my opinion while there may be labels that are well supported by sources, we should never use those labels out of context, and instead to make sure we explain why said labels apply (briefly in the lede, expanded in the body). For example it should be sufficient to just say a politician is far right in the lede without any support (as to the point above, the far right page implies violence), but instead should be stated that the politician is characterized as far right for supporting segregation, anti immigrant, anti abortion, and pro gun rights (for example) as a quick summary in the lede. That way the reader should not necessary have to check the wiki link, and even if they do the short context gives them ideas what to read on that page. — M asem (t) 20:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * We have good guidance at WP:LABEL. It would be nice if editors adhered to it. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Two further thoughts:
 * 1. We should consider the guidance at WP:NONDEF. It is written for categories, but since terms in the lead serve to define the subject, we should ensure they really are defining terms. It’s not enough that several sources call a subject neo-purplist, they should be commonly and consistently labelled as such.
 * 2. Some terms serving as condemnatory labels have been so politically useful as weapons that their wielders have sought to creep the definition wider and wider so as to capture more rhetorical ground. The result is that the terms become less and less meaningful. Our article on far-right tells us that all you need to be far-right is to hold “aspects of … reactionary views”, which covers a vast spectrum. Terms like this are semantically dead, worn out from overuse, which is a shame because they used to mean something. When everybody is far-right, nobody is. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is more important to be accurate than to be nice. If reliable sources predominantly describe X as Y, then so should we. Zaathras (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Masem. An article should be written like wikilinks didn't exist. It's so frustrating when you come across a word, and all you want to know is what it means, yet no article you come across will give a straight answer without clicking more links. You just fall down the rabbit hole never to return, and never to learn anything. That's especially a problem in technical and scientific articles. Any article should be able to define its own subject without disrupting the cohesion or flow, and without needing to click on a link to find out what the hell its talking about.


 * The same is true with a bio. Masem's way defines the term with context, whereas relying on the link is really giving the reader no information at all, unless they decide to click on the link. We didn't have anything like that back in the day, so that's one of those new problems introduced by technology. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate if you read the post before responding to it. Nowhere did I come even remotely close to proposing or claiming that labels in BLPs should be removed -- literally the only issue I have raised is whether they should be wikilinked (i.e. the section title is "wikilinks that make people look like jackoffs", not "words that make people look like jackoffs"). jp×g🗯️ 03:20, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Never said labels should be removed. If the label is absolutely called for by reliable sources as an oft-way to describe the person, and the body goes into significant detail with sourcing about that, then its likely appropriate for the lede. Just that is needs to be given context, and not simply laid bare with nothing else around it. That typically means how to write the lede appropriately but certainly not eliminating labels that belong in the lede. M asem (t) 03:26, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're replying to me, Masem, but if so, neither did I. My point is similar to one I made just moments earlier at the Kelvin article, where the definition was basically, "A temperature scale based on absolute zero" followed by a lot of very technical jargon. What if the reader doesn't know what absolute zero is? Poof, we've lost them down the rabbit hole. And if they have to click another link to find out what that means, they may never find their way back. Terminology and jargon are very useful if properly used, but there's no reason we can't give a brief explanation of the term right there in mid-sentence, or, alternatively, make the definition of the term evident through context. The latter is basically what you did in your comment above, which works beautifully, especially since "far right" is a term that has no clear-cut meaning, thus context is everything. I'm not advocating eliminating all labels from the lede, nor even eliminating wikilinks, but in that wikilinks should not be used as a crutch to avoid a little hard work. The lede, and hell, even the entire article, but especially the lede should be readable --in it's entirety-- to the general reader without ever having to click on a link. Zaereth (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There was just previously a discussion about MTG along this line. The discussion is still visible and live on this page. How would you apply your position to that example? De-wl "right-wing" because the target is overbroad and presents undue weight by its mere linking? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but a concrete example of applying your ideas would be helpful to me. JFHJr (㊟) 21:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't have a "position" and I do not really care about the specific politician in question, who seems like some kind of unremarkable whackadoodle.
 * I figured I would open a thread and see what people thought about the general thing, because I remember a similar complaint being made a while ago (about a different person, and -- if this helps calm everybody's indigestion -- I believe they were a lefty).
 * Maybe it is just unavoidable, or it's not that big of a deal, or maybe somebody has a clever idea that avoids the issue altogether (suppressing the page image in the popup may be such a clever idea). <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 03:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's unavoidable. What's sad is far-left politics lacks any images at all to get angry over previews. The mouseover > the Mao'sover. Perhaps someone should just add a few blood pressure raising images near the lede there for balance. JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really help with the central issue, but I added  to the lede image at far-right politics, which should (in theory) hide it from the WP:PAGEPREVIEWS popup. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea. It hasn't immediately worked. Maybe it takes time? If any technically able admin is able to provide a fix, I can provide screenshots from 4 operating systems with different browsers, by email. If someone is savvy enough to fix preview displays, they might not need them though. JFHJr (㊟) 02:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * To be clear, this won't change the WP:POPUPS preview, only the Page Previews that are shown by default. WP:POPUPS is used by "power users" who have some understanding about how the Wikipedia sausage is made, and anyway the image is tiny, so I don't think it's a problem. Are you still seeing the preview image while logged out? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No difference logged in or out. On the mobile preview, the image is actually quite clear, centered. The desktop preview on mobile, and my actual desktop both show the image off-center and only partially visible. I'm amenable to considering this a non-issue at BLPN and let any sausage-savvy admins who care to take this up have at it. JFHJr (㊟) 04:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Curbon7 (talk) 03:32, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene
Marjorie Taylor Greene Biography says she is far right. If you click on the highlighted term far right you get the wiki reference that shows a picture of people holding Nazi flags and Confederate flags. There is no evidence of any kind that Marjorie Taylor Greene is, or was at any time, a supporter of Nazism or the Confederacy. This is misleading to the point of being libelous and has no place in a work intended to be a factual on-line encyclopedia. Simply change the term far right with the word conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnus gold key (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We have a large number of sources identifying Marjorie Taylor Greene as far right. The far-right politics article itself offers a range of far right groups, of which confederate fans and Nazis are only a portion. Her support for such things as the White genocide theory makes the descriptor seem not unreasonable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can I just say that this probably wins the prize for most unnecessarily long topic header of the day. But, no, Marjorie Taylor Greene is definitely a far-right politician according to reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I reduced the header for practical navigation reasons; it was the same material as the body text. Robot fighters are not known for their subtlety. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You seem to be complaining that the article Far-right politics has some example imagery that you don't like, rather than providing a sound argument that MTG isn't far-right. The sources bear out that she is far right, by her own admission.  Her article doesn't say she supported Nazism or the Confederacy directly.  I don't see a problem with her article, as even she calls herself far right.  You can always go to the article on Far-right politics and start a discussion about removing the image with the flags, but I doubt it would reach consensus, as the sources seem to support the idea that Confederate-ism and Nazism are clearly examples of, and common ones at that.  In short, I don't see a valid reason for this report to be on this particular administrative board.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's what I am thinking. She's not even mentioned in the far-right article. OP's beef is with the WL itself. JFHJr (㊟) 01:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This article seems no different than others, but maybe the general phenomenon is worth a thread here. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 19:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, another editor has a very similar concern, on this page right now. Try searching for "jackoffs" and pick up the torch there. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not another editor. That's the same editor. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I was winking discreetly at "I must confess I've forgotten which articles specifically" ...WINK! JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, let me wink at the BADSITE: I figured it would be blindingly obvious, from the context, that this was one of several, and that I remembered noticing this same thing on a couple other articles some months ago.
 * I did not mention this politician by name in the other section, because I am not really interested in this politician specifically, or her article, or what it says in the lead, and especially not interested in chimpanzee shitflinging over whether I am sufficiently explicit in saying that I don't support her, et cetera.
 * I was more interested in getting people's opinions on the general issue of the potential for wikilinks to make implications that plain text does not, and whether this is something that falls under the purview of Wikipedia policy on the biographies of living persons, using hypothetical examples. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 05:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But is this really a systemic issue that needs policy change, or a rare thing that can be handled on a case by case basis? All we can do is apply WP:NPOV in each instance.  I don't see how any blanket rule is going to change that. If there is a question to be asked, it would be: Does the lead image in the far-right politics page factually and neutrally represent the topic, and I don't see why that discussion can't happen on that talk page first.  If you call yourself "far right" and some "bad" people are called "far right" by the sources, and we cover each topic neutrally, then we have done our job. I'm not sure a hypothetical discussion is helpful when we already have real examples. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 08:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Looking at the other photographs on the Far-right politics page - would it do any harm to move the Charlottesville photograph down to the United States section and replace it with the photograph of G. H. W. Bush shaking hands with Pinochet? Daveosaurus (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean there's few far-right figures from the second half of the 20th century more notable than Pinochet. Simonm223 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, these are decisions to be made on that article talk page, not BLPN. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Nambaryn Enkhbayar


Edits on this page are repeatedly violating BLP policies. The last sentence in the introductory paragraph, "Due to his corruption scandal he is regarded as the godfather of corruption in Mongolian politics by the public media" is repeatedly inserted and is poorly sourced as well as potentially libelous.

Source 1 for the aformentioned sentence is an article titled "Enkhbayar is not the ONLY godfather of corruption in Mongolia" yet the contents of the article itself fail to provide any tangible and fact-based evidence for the claim. In fact, the article's contents do not discuss Enkhbayar at all, until in the first sentence of the last paragraph which simply repeats the title. This is misleading and biased.

Source 2 is a translated article from an original Russian newsite that discusses Enkhbayar's political career (albeit titled towards more allegedly controversial parts), but does not claim that he is the godfather of corruption. The source is also unreliable given it's a foreign news agency with no reputable and presence in Mongolia.

Both sources seem to be cherry-picked in an attempt to provide a biased and/or misleading narrative and detracts from objective information. The page includes a section "Conviction of Corruption" which discusses in detail the relevant facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.42.196.255 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Hrm. Looking at one of the sources, it flat-out says, " N. Enkhbayar was given the nickname 'Godfather of Corruption' because of such actions." The Business New Europe article does not immediately seem to be unreliable. —C.Fred (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean looking at that one particular source (i.e., singular). The other source is highly misleading (as I have explained in my initial post) which should already indicate it is a possible attempt to sway objectivity. I don't think an obscure Russian newssite should be a source to make such a sweeping statement about a living individual in another country. If the same was reported by the largest Mongolian media outlets (24tsag.mn; shuurhai.mn; gogo.mn; or official, state-funded broadcaster of Mongolia MNB), then this claim might have some credence. Again, I have visited this page periodically and this particular sentence was never there until about last month which conveniently coincides with the upcoming parliamentary elections in June (if that helps to understand the context). 38.42.196.255 (talk) 21:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Elliott Broidy
I changed the opening lead sentence from "Elliott B. Broidy... is a disgraced former American lobbyist..." to "Elliott B. Broidy... is an American former lobbyist..." to comply with (my understanding of) WP:BLP. Editor reverted that change with the edit summary "revert UPE". I manually reverted to the neutral language opening again. FWIW, I'm not a UPE, but even if I was, this POV and disparaging description in a BLP is not appropriate. I'd like a few eyes on this, because in my mind "disgraced" is completely POV. --164.64.118.99 (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It is never appropriate to lead a BLP with a loaded POV term like "disgraced". It's also inappropriate to accuse someone of UPE without some evidence. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm perhaps this is a pattern. Yesterday they removed 5,735 bytes from Yodo1 with the summary "UPE". Perhaps they are unaware of what UPE means? --164.64.118.99 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I noticed that as well. It appears that the content that was removed from Yodo1 was put there by a confirmed sockpuppet. See Sockpuppet investigations/Sjutt. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, I mention that there is a risk of a UPE, recently the editor Loksmythe tried to remove the same information as the IP address, so the editor was identified as a Sockpuppet. I worry that there is a campaign trying to remove well referenced information in many articles ,,, where Broidy is mentioned as being disgraced. Mereutza (talk) 09:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Describing a living person as "disgraced" in wikivoice, especially in the lead sentence, is almost never going to be appropriate. As it is the lead already discusses his convictions for corruption and bribery, his affair, and his admission to acting as an unregistered foreign agent. There is absolutely no need to describe him as "disgraced" in wikivoice: readers are perfectly capable of drawing their own conclusions here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Barry Trachtenberg
I am wondering why there is a page for this person. The only thing listed is that he ac history professor at wake forest and once testified to congress. Many other professors at this school are far more accomplished (more important scholars, government service, multiple patents) and to not have a Wikipedia page. In what way is this an important person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.138.197.172 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Greetings. It sounds like you're looking for Articles for Deletion. We don't delete things here. Please also see our general notability guidelines as well as WP:SCHOLAR, which apply to academics and the like. JFHJr (㊟) 21:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As for why other professors, possibly more accomplished, do not have Wikipedia biographies. that is because nobody has yet volunteered to write those articles. You could be the one. Please read Wikipedia is a work in progress. Cullen328 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks and sorry I put this in the wrong place. 104.138.197.172 (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No harm done, so don't feel sorry. I hope you will take up Cullen's suggestion and help expand Wikipedia. Helps to register an account whether authoring or going to AfD. Here's a helpful link (if the link reading hasn't already been too much!): WP:WHYREGISTER. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Prime Minister or not
There's an ongoing discussion going on talk page with editors Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång calling me a Advocacy editor without me having done any thing to be called that and I consider it offensive. I have tried to edit base on Libel and Censorship and I made sure I followed the rules guiding Neutral point of view on the Lead of the article on whether Simon Ekpa is a Prime Minister or not.

If you check the history of the discussion, you would notice how it all started. They were the ones that started the talk discussion but later deviated. I as an editor after a while saw the topic and decided to contribute but they ended up biting me. I edited based on information found on Finnish Wikipedia and Finnish Newspaper that rightly called Ekpa the "Prime Minister" but ended up being bitten by them and their intentions is probably to scare me away from contributing for them continue with their libelous editing by putting "Self-declared" Prime Minister on the Lead. It will be a pleasure to go ahead and provide evidences of them calling me WP:ADVOCACY editor without prior evidence. It's painful! I am by this bringing to your attention the Libelous content found on the Lead. Thanks Fugabus (talk) 11:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I can see nothing libellous in the lede. Biafra is not an independent state. It has no independent government. It holds no independent elections. Neither Ekpa calling himself a 'prime minister' nor his own supporters describing him thus makes him one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the interested, related discussion: User_talk:Gråbergs_Gråa_Sång. As I stated in my OP at Talk:Simon_Ekpa, I pretty much agree with ATG, but as I also stated further down in that thread, I can live with the current version "He is the self-declared prime minister of a government-in-exile, the Biafra Republic Government in Exile (BRGIE), which was founded in 2023." if I must. Somewhat surprisingly, at least according to WP, the bar to being a government-in-exile is saying you are a government-in-exile. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ping to @Reading Beans, since they're mentioned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There has been accusations here of impartiality by @Fugabus. My view is that Fugabus miss-translates some key finnish vocabulary, another examples is here about the use of the term lawyer, when finnish sources don't support the term. Fugabus also repetedly claim they have translated finnish terms, but never provide evidence for their work, while when I check the Yle, Kuvalehti sources myself the sources actually say something different. The finnish source material such as Yle and Kuvalehti never treat Ekpa as an prime minister, but rather that the term is controversial pointing this out by the fact that he calls himself prime minister such as here . Despite these things being made clear, Fugabus often cites wiki rules and has even thrown around that some of these Finnish sources having been clickbait. Which is not true, Yle has for several years been the most trusted and popular news source in the Finnish language.   Yle even did a reportage in the territory in question where they interviewed people there.
 * This leads me to suspect that Fugabus is the biased one, based on above, it seems like they employ selective translating or confirmation bias. Accuracy should be maintained. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello @AndyTheGrump and ping to all editors.
 * May I say you may be breft of the rights of government-in-exile per your submission.
 * Kindly read Government-in-exile#Activities (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-in-exile#Activities) for clear understanding of this very dispute.
 * They have rights to hold elections or amend or revise its own constitution under international law. Read also past and present Exile governments. Ojukwu was their first president and later fled to Exile with his government. Please, first familiarize yourself with the topic before contributing. Read the Finnish Wikipedia. which I failed to properly wikilink in the above submission from me. One of the template tag on Simon Ekpa article page clearly stated that editors can help translate the corresponding Finnish Wikipedia to the English one and I seek to apply it judiciously.
 * For @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, the Exile government is headquartered the US according to report. What makes you feel they are not a government-in-exile and that they are just claiming to be?
 * That Finnish Wikipedia evaluated him being a "Prime Minof Biafra in exile ister" is highly interesting to note for every editor on the English Wikipedia.
 * Familiarize with government-in-exile and their activities as we reach a conclusive consensus here.
 * Sincerely,
 * Fugabus (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Per your source "The Biafra Republic Government in Exile says it has opened an administrative office in Maryland Baltimore, USA." The org/Ekpa says that. It has all the value of WP:ABOUTSELF. And I just said above, that at least according to WP, anything that says it is a gie, is a gie. That's why I can live with the current WP-version as I said above, since, at least according to WP, it's technically correct regarding gie [insert quote from Futurama]. And here we see the interesting effect of the name Ekpa choose for his org: every time a source mentions it by name, it sort of "affirms" it is what it says it is. Possibly rather clever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The kuvalehti source actually covers this, their 'finance minister' lives there. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "A two-story house from the suburbs of Maryland in the United States has been purchased as the actual central office. The Minister of Finance of the Refugee Board lives there." per GT? I'll take your word for it. The org has a US-office. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, but not ... 'of the refugee board' but 'of the government of exile', the word for refugee, asylum seeker and exile is the same in finnish :D Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That was what I assumed, and why we need people like you to watch how GT is used on WP. I used GT on a Romanian source for an article about a dog, and was told that the dog used to be a chicken. It was fairly clear chicken meant puppy in context, but things can be trickier than that. Like the Swedish word "val" can mean election, choice or whale. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The word used to mean what 'ed' or 'svära ed' means today, or what finniah 'vala' means ;). Though this is probably getting off topic now haha Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I suggest @Kennet.mattfolk should stay neutral on this dispute resolution and allow uninvolved editors except Reading Beans and Gråbergs Gråa Sång to contribute as you were never pinged and you never called me WP:ADVOCACY editor per the main dispute submission. Meanwhile I have replied to your unfounded accusations here on your talk as I don't wish to deviate from the ongoing discussion like you just did and other editors should take not of it. Fugabus (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Fugabus
 * Ok, again, accusations, your 'reply' here weren't about the topic at hand, even there your wrongly cited information from finnish wiki in your attempt, only looking at the lead and not body. Now here, your telling me to frack off, this doesn't concern me, even though I keep telling you, your getting finnish language things wrong. Thus you 'translating' the meaning of prime minister without actually checking what the source states about the term, hence you seem to employ confirmation bias. Which I also showed in my original post in this dispute above. You show no evidence of my bias, you just level the accusations, when confronted you try to distract me away (like you posted on my talk page, to go read govt in exile) or directly telling me to leave now.
 * Now you just went and copy pasted the stuff that you originally posted at my talk page.. spamming pings to people to several talk pages but with the same post. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Now you just went and copy pasted the stuff that you originally posted at my talk page.. spamming pings to people to several talk pages but with the same post. Kennet.mattfolk (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Fugabus, you seem to have a complete misunderstanding of the purpose of this noticeboard. Along, apparently with multiple core Wikipedia policies. What Wikipedia's article has to say on the subject of governments in exile has no bearing whatsoever on whether the disputed content in the Ekpa biography is libellous or not. That depends solely on what independent published sources directly discussing Ekpa have to say on him. And we don't cite Finnish Wikipedia as a source, either, read WP:RS. And no, you don't get to decide who comments here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please, @Kennet.mattfolk I offended you and I apologize by pasting that mess on your talk page. It was a technical error from my end. Not intentional! Per your submission that the Finance minister lives in the US, Here's another secondary source coverage of their Chief of Staff.
 * Fugabus (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This source may be more reliable than the previous. People's daily
 * Sincerely,
 * Fugabus (talk) 18:19, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Um what's the purpose of that source? Clearly what amounts to a press release by the Biafra Republic is not reliable for anything but their views. Nil Einne (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Surely the purpose is obvious. It's to expose the "irresponsible and rascality" nature of the "Biafra Republic's" enemies. Wonderful. I do love it when Wikipedia exposes a bit of rascality.DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Nil Einne@DeCausa If you're interested, dispute continues at Talk:Simon_Ekpa. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no further comment rather than the one submitted by Kenneth and Grab. I want only add that Biafra does not, cannot and have not conducted any election nor any activity done by an independent or semi independent country. If they do, then, Fugabus should provide a reliable source stating so. Best, Reading Beans  20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Jeremy Swayman - article states he owns the Toronto Maple Leafs. That information is false.
Jeremy Swayman - article states he owns the Toronto Maple Leafs. That information is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:1D5C:D200:2DC4:8447:9179:BA1 (talk)
 * Fixed thank you. Jessintime (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Petty sports nonsense, reverted. Thank you for calling it out.  Ravensfire  (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Tim Peck
I was reading up about Call 9 and then thought it/the founder, Tim Peck, should have their/his own article. Then I started reading up about Tim Peck and see he's running for Congress. So the optics about creating the page now may appear dubious and possibly unfair to the other candidates. What do other people think? Does he warrant his own article? MaskedSinger (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Either he passes WP:GNG or he doesn't. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 05:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thats what I thought. Wasn't sure if people felt the same. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 05:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is kind of a core principle. If they are notable, you can write an article on them, with the only exceptions being if it is a BLP and the existence of the article causes significant hardship to that individual, AND they are borderline notable. (Those are really rare cases.)  Otherwise, it isn't their fault if they are notable and opponents are not, or that other people haven't written articles on the opponents.  Again, this assume they have more than a couple of WP:RS that are actually significant coverage, and they pass WP:GNG, and the article is written in a neutral manner. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dennis! MaskedSinger (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Lakshmi Tatma
In 2005, a girl (Lakshmi Tatma) was born with an extremely rare deformity (a full extra set of arms and legs), and later underwent an extremely complicated surgery to correct it. This is all well and fine (and seems to be obviously GNG-passing) -- but is it really condign for the article to use her full real name? The section on the surgery contains many details which are, surely, of genuine medical interest, but nonetheless they are very specific details about her internal organs. I will admit we lack a "Pelvises of Living Persons" policy, but it seems a little personal to have this under her full name.

It seems to me like it may be better, morally speaking, to have this article at some title like "Lakshmi T." or similar. Should I just move it, or is there a reason not to? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * An example of what I mean: As of February 2008, a later operation was planned to bring her legs closer together. Another operation may be needed to rebuild her pelvic floor muscles. Now, I am not a doctor, but it seems to me the pelvic floor muscles are connected to the *. I am imagining this is me for a second, and I think I would be quite unhappy about the musculoskeletal structure of my * being in my Wikipedia article. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 07:31, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The level of detail in the article seems excessive, in particular the numbered steps in the operation. I don't think we need a blow by blow description of every procedure in an article that is supposed to summarize the notability of the individual.  This isn't even about the "pelvis" concerns, it's more about excessive detail that dominates the prose of the article.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 07:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources, including those we would normally consider the most reliable, give her full name. She is widely reported on under her full name. Trying to anonymise her on Wikipedia as "Lakshmi T." strikes me as closing the barn door after the horse has bolted somewhat, especially given we will presumably want to keep a redirect from her full name because that is the name people searching for the article are going to use.
 * From an ethical point of view rather than one of strict Wikipedia policy, I would consider it more important to ensure that the article is written with care and sensitivity than to worry about the inclusion of her name. (On a brief search, it seems as though there is at least some scholarship on the ethical and social aspects of this case which the current article doesn't address at all.) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do WP:MEDRS consistently name her? Her notability is due to her medical uniqueness and the procedures she had to undergo. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Melinda Marx
The existing article of Melinda Marx first appearing on the program, "You bet your life" that was hosted by her father, Groucho Marx when she was 8 years of age is incorrect. Melinda first appeared on this program in 1953 when she was 6 and appeared a second time a few months later Her second appearance in 1953 featured her singing the song with her father called, "I hear singing". The contestants on the program were: Mrs Bernadine Lodge, Doctor Wyn York, Mr Raymond Heron, Laura Hammersley. This episode of "You bet your life" can be viewed on YouTube. The link for viewing is: You bet your life 1953, Moviecraft Inc. viewed via Youtube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.24.204 (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I'm not able to corroborate it from the episodes I found on YouTube, and it's not available on Hulu currently. We'd need a more specific link to check the episode. —C.Fred (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Martin Nowak
There is a dispute at Martin Nowak over his widely reported relation with Jeffrey Epstein. Over the last year, all of the previous content on their relationship was steadily removed from the wikipage.

I recently restored it, and someone is removing it again, claiming BLP violations. I think the material is well sourced, easily verifiable, and appropriate for inclusion. It would be good to have extra viewpoints. Gumshoe2 (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I think it might be helpful if someone knowledgeable on BLP policy would comment on the talk page, the content remover seems to be awaiting direct feedback. Gumshoe2 (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The question may be, does that belong in the lede of the article, or in the body? Is the association so strong that the lede is diminished by it being moved to the body?  I'm not sure, but at first glance, it seems including some of the material (but not in a stand alone header) would make sense.  Based on his own book, I can see why referencing Epstein *might* make sense, but it is still a consensus issue.  Getting consensus in the body is easier than the lead.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The present depiction of the association between Nowak and Epstein is biased and contains several factual inaccuracies. These deviations from neutrality and accuracy are in clear violation of Wikipedia's guidelines. Given that the article is a BLP, it is concerning that the page has been protected while such content remains uncorrected. There is a particular worry that a significant portion of the information related to Epstein was contributed by individuals harboring personal grievances against Nowak, further violating Wikipedia's standards for BLPs.
 * I suggest that the sentences in the body of the article are revised to provide a factually true and unbiased discussion, as per Wikipedia guidelines.
 * The following sentences written on the page now are false:
 * 1) "...as a punishment for having provided an office, keycard, and passcode, and for allowing Epstein free and unlimited access to the university's campus ten years after his conviction for sex crimes"
 * The Harvard report only mentions a keycard. Nowak was not blamed for "providing an office" as this was known and approved by the university. No passcode is ever discussed. PED was not on university campus. Thus Epstein never had "free and unlimited access to the university campus".
 * Nowak was hired as a full professor, not a security guard. Therefore, he had no authority to provide “unlimited access to the university campus” to anyone, even less so since his institute was not on university grounds. This is clear in the report.
 * 2) "The PED was funded with a total nine million dollars from the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, [15]" - this sentence is false, as the Harvard report says the university received 6.5 million in 2003 for the support of PED"
 * 3) "In 2020, the university placed Nowak on paid academic leave for violation of campus policies including professional conduct and campus access" - this sentence is misleading - the three specific charges against Nowak are discussed in the following source: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/14/lessig-epstein-at-harvard/. This article is not cited anywhere in the page, although it provides important information favorable to Nowak.
 * Important information from the Harvard report which should be included in the discussion:
 * - In 2013 Harvard development office invites Epstein to come to campus to attend the kick-off of the University Capital campaign.
 * - In 2017 FAS Development office asks Nowak to reach out to Epstein to request more funding. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The following points from https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/4/14/lessig-epstein-at-harvard/  are currently not discussed at all, yet they offer a more nuanced picture of the case that the current version of the page would like to portray:
 * - Lessig argues that framing Nowak's association with Epstein as a punishable offense is absurd, given that numerous other individuals from Harvard, including those more famous and prominent, had also associated with Epstein. Nowak's alleged offenses, according to Lessig, are not offenses at all.
 * - Lessig highlights a charge of "profound negligence" in misrepresenting the source of PED's matching funds to the Templeton Foundation. However, Nowak's emails with the foundation show that the precise wording used to report his funding was requested by the foundation itself, indicating no misrepresentation.
 * - Lessig points out that Harvard was aware from the outset that Epstein treated PED as a second office, even as early as 2006. Despite this, no objections were raised about Epstein's access to PED offices, with Nowak even stating that Summers walked with Epstein as he secured access using his own keycard. The subsequent disciplinary action against Nowak for providing Epstein with a different keycard after a university-wide security protocol change appears inconsistent.
 * - Nowak faces disciplinary action because the center allowed Epstein's biography to be featured on PED's webpage after a request from Epstein's publicist. Lessig argues that including benefactor stories on center webpages is common practice, and Nowak shouldn't be held accountable for failing to recognize the misuse of the harvard.edu domain, especially considering Harvard's previous interactions with Epstein. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As for including Epstein in the lead of Nowak’s article: as I pointed out in the Talk page, Nowak had a Wikipedia page long before the Epstein affair. This is because he is famous first and foremost for his scientific contributions, as evidenced by his many many publications in prestigious journals and awards.
 * The association with Epstein should be under ‘Controversies’ and described as to provide a balanced (and factually accurate!) overview of the source on the subject. The insistence of some individuals on placing it prominently in the initial sentences of the article is perplexing, and I fail to see how this does not violate Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy. Especially, since I have pointed out that some of the information regarding the association with Epstein lacks proper support or is contradicted by the sources cited. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:9050:6959:CFE3:2C60 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing specifics! It would have been helpful if you had done so earlier instead of simply alleging my bias. To go in order through your comments, starting with the claims of factual errors on the wikipage:
 * You are incorrect; a passcode is mentioned three times in the report - you can use ctrl+f to find it. It is also mentioned in the Svrluga secondary source. Perhaps you are right that office and research space for university faculty, researchers, and students is not properly "university campus," I've edited it.  See below for comment on Epstein's office space.
 * The numbers of 6.5, 9, and 30 million have been variously reported. It is probably better to just say "a large sum of money" or similar. I've edited it.
 * See this ref for citation. That article by Lessig is explicitly an op-ed; maybe it can be used for some things but I think it is very arguably not a reliable source.
 * It's not quite right that "In 2017 FAS Development office asks Nowak to reach out to Epstein to request more funding"; they asked him to reach out to Epstein to request help arranging funding from others. This seems like a small detail, I don't see why it should be included. And the 2013 invitation (pg 13 of report) seems completely unrelated to Nowak.
 * As for Lessig's op-ed:
 * I don't think Lessig's opinion on whether what Nowak did was bad is relevant.
 * Nowak's alleged misrepresentation of funds to Templeton isn't presently mentioned on the wikipage, so this seems to be irrelevant. Regardless, unfortunately Lessig's op-ed seems to be the only available source on Nowak's emails.
 * "Harvard was aware from the outset" of office space refers only to a particular time point of 2006, which was both before Epstein's first conviction and contemporaneous with his time as an official Visiting Fellow at the university. There is no indication that their awareness continued through the next 13 years, and all reports except for an implicit claim by Lessig are to the contrary. Even Nowak's own claim (pg 20 of the report) is that Epstein's office was a general visitor office only informally used by Epstein; if so, how could it be recognized by the university?
 * As for the different keycard, see pages 19-20 of report: "PED's CAO thus, with Professor Nowak on notice, circumvented Harvard's efforts to tighten its security procedures and permitted Epstein to continue to have unfettered access to PED's offices."
 * The matter with the webpage isn't presently covered on the wikipage. Regardless, I again don't think that Lessig's opinion is very relevant.
 * Overall, I think you are relying excessively on the opinion and perspective of Lessig's op-ed. To the small extent to which it's in contradiction to the present content on the wikipage (namely on university awareness of office space), I think it isn't admissible as a reliable source. But it would be fine to add a sentence along the lines of "According to Lawrence Lessig, Nowak served as a scapegoat for Epstein's more extensive interactions with the university." with citation to this article in The Nation. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are incorrect in saying the Lessig's discussion of the three accusations are not relevant. The Harvard report blames Nowak for exactly those three violations; see point 4 of page 26 of the report. Lessig dismantles each one of them.
 * You are incorrect in saying that it is irrelevant that 1. Harvard invited Epstein in 2013 to their fund raising campaign and that 2. Harvard asked Nowak in 2017 to ask Epstein (or Black) for donations. Since Nowak is blamed for maintaining connection with Epstein, these two points are relevant for unbiased readers to form an opinion.
 * The exact quotes from the report are: "In 2013, the development office invited Epstein to come to campus to attend the kick-off of the University’s Capital Campaign."
 * "And as recently as February 2017, an FAS development office staffer asked Professor Nowak to “reach out to [the Blacks or Epstein] again soon” to seek further support."
 * You are correct that a "passcode" is mentioned in the report. I am sorry I have overlooked this before. I do not contest "passcode".
 * All Epstein material should be moved into a paragraph of the biography that gives a fair picture of Nowak's involvement. There should be a separate section entitled "Controversy over Epstein" which should discuss the material that speaks for or against Nowak.
 * It is against Wikipedia rules to use the Epstein material in the lead or career section of the Biography, because this has the only intention of damaging the reputation of a living person, which appears to be your primary motivation. 2A01:E0A:808:6FB0:3596:644B:BBBF:8C7 (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Are there any sources other than Lessig's own op-ed which suggest that Lessig (or anyone else) 'dismantled' the accusations? The closest I am aware of is the Nation article I linked above, which reasonably says (in addition to other paragraphs on Nowak):
 * The one person Harvard sanctioned in the whole affair was Martin Nowak, for giving Epstein unlimited access to the Harvard campus and for allowing him to use the PED website to burnish his image despite being aware of Epstein’s status as a registered sex offender. Nowak’s program was shut down and his teaching activities severely curtailed. One faculty member who went public with his disgust with the report was Lawrence Lessig, a professor at Harvard Law School. In a column in the Crimson, he denounced the university for making Nowak a “scapegoat.” “Airbrushed from the history,” he wrote, “are the many Harvard luminaries who participated in and encouraged the ongoing relationship with Epstein after 2008.” The most notable of them, Lessig told me, was Summers. He “was at the center of everything around Epstein,” and omitting him from the report was like putting on “Hamlet without the prince.”
 * Key facts such as whether the university was aware of Epstein's office are stated to be true by Lessig without presented evidence (perhaps based on a misreading of the report), and, crucially, as far as I know are not supported by any other sources. The other issues (misrepresentation of funds to Templeton and website activity) are, again, not even present on the wikipage presently. Gumshoe2 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct the Nation Article is useful and should be cited. In fact, the Nation Article supports Lessig's point that Nowak was scapegoated.
 * The Harvard Report, which is attached to the website lists the three specific charges that were used to blame Nowak. Therefore Lessig's article is relevant, because Lessig discusses the three charges in detail and points out how "thin" they are.
 * May I suggest a consensus? What about moving the Epstein material into a single chapter of the biography entitled "Controversy over Epstein". We could collaborate to write that chapter, which should cite the Nation Article and the Lessig Article. 193.55.218.34 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The article in The Nation only suggests that others at the university also deserve scrutiny; it doesn't suggest that Nowak was unfairly accused of anything. I don't think Lessig's article credibly discusses the charges in and of itself; more importantly, as I asked above, are there any sources other than Lessig's own op-ed which suggest that Lessig (or anyone else) 'dismantled' the accusations?
 * It doesn't seem likely that you and I will agree on this. We may have to wait for others to join the discussion, but we might have to wait a few days. Gumshoe2 (talk) 14:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Creating an account, since I am travelling...
 * Concerning your statements:
 * "it doesn't suggest that Nowak was unfairly accused of anything"
 * I never claimed that.
 * "I don't think Lessig's article credibly discusses the charges in and of itself""..."perhaps based on a misreading of the report" ???
 * It is not up to you to decide whether what Lessig wrote is based on a misreading of the report. Or your opinion on whether Lessig is credible or not. He wrote what he wrote, and it was published in a reliable source. This claim is interpretation, which is not beyond the scope of your role as a Wiki editor.
 * Lessig’s article is another source for the role of Nowak in Harvard’s entaglement with Jeffrey Epstein. It presents a nuance of the accusations cited in other sources. Again, your personal views about Lessig’s reliability are completely irrelevant. The wikipage needs to fairly present all published points of view.
 * Fine waiting for others to join this discussion, although as I said, I do want to reach a consensus, so long as it fairly represents the different opinions on this subject. I hope that this discussion will attract some traffic in the coming days. Sim(e)Xavi (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Asking for the third time: are there any sources other than Lessig's own op-ed which suggest that the accusations against Nowak are 'thin', exaggerated, or false? Op-eds don't go through the same fact-checking process as regular newspaper articles, which I believe makes it important for us to scrutinize supposed facts in Lessig's op-ed – such as that the university was aware of Epstein's office, which I do believe is based on a misreading of the report. Other claims, such as about Templeton emails, seem to be reported in the op-ed for the first and only time, and I don't think it can possibly be used as a reliable source for those claims. The problem is that the op-ed doesn't just give opinion and perspective on available facts; on this issue it's based on facts which don't seem to appear anywhere else. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to decide whether what Lessig wrote is based on a misreading of the report. Or your opinion on whether Lessig is credible or not. He wrote what he wrote, and it was published in a reliable source. This claim is interpretation, which is not beyond the scope of your role as a Wiki editor.
 * Lessig’s article is another source for the role of Nowak in Harvard’s entaglement with Jeffrey Epstein. It presents a nuance of the accusations cited in other sources. Again, your personal views about Lessig’s reliability are completely irrelevant. The wikipage needs to fairly present all published points of view.
 * Fine waiting for others to join this discussion, although as I said, I do want to reach a consensus, so long as it fairly represents the different opinions on this subject. I hope that this discussion will attract some traffic in the coming days. Sim(e)Xavi (talk) 13:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Asking for the third time: are there any sources other than Lessig's own op-ed which suggest that the accusations against Nowak are 'thin', exaggerated, or false? Op-eds don't go through the same fact-checking process as regular newspaper articles, which I believe makes it important for us to scrutinize supposed facts in Lessig's op-ed – such as that the university was aware of Epstein's office, which I do believe is based on a misreading of the report. Other claims, such as about Templeton emails, seem to be reported in the op-ed for the first and only time, and I don't think it can possibly be used as a reliable source for those claims. The problem is that the op-ed doesn't just give opinion and perspective on available facts; on this issue it's based on facts which don't seem to appear anywhere else. Gumshoe2 (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Bryan Freedman
I'm reaching out for assistance regarding an ongoing edit war and potential BLP violation on Bryan Freedman. Despite clear resolution on the talk page there's been persistent reverting and re-adding of contentious content.

Here is a specific diff highlighting the issue: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadianthe (talk • contribs) 04:09  22 April 2024 (UTC)

Khalil Kain
An editor persists in restoring unsourced content about date of birth and personal life in Khalil Kain after I have removed it, citing the lack of adequate sourcing. Today my talk page contained the following message:"Please stop removing edits being made from Khalil’s family. There has been repeated information incorrectly released from his Wiki page for years. You clearly do not know him personally. It’s just annoying at this point."

I replied to that message (pointing out Conflict of interest and Verifiability), but I wonder if anyone here might have any thoughts on how to impress on this editor the need for providing sources.Eddie Blick (talk) 13:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since the recent edits on this seems to be by IP, I put a warning at . If it continues by that IP, ask to have it blocked. If it continues by other IP:s or accounts, ask for page protection. Or perhaps some of this can be sourced. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

John Bartlett (racing driver)
I have multiple concerns about this article. There appears to be COI editing going on (I have dropped the IP editor a line, but had no response). There is certainly POV editing going on, for example, attempts to minimise/excuse his conviction for fraud (e.g. "At the start of this now very complex Trial for any jury to comprehend").

The article is absolutely stuffed with WP:FANCRUFT (probably a decade since I last used that term) and as a result it makes it very hard to assess if the bloke even passes WP:N I've done some light Googling, best I can find is a couple of passing mentions that Leslie Phillips narrated the audio version of his book, and a mention in a BBC article on prison overcrowding that "former racing driver John Bartlett" was in a particular prison. Of the 60 odd references currently in the article, none really seem to stand up to WP:V.

I'd appreciate someone taking a look. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:22, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

To add to this, it seems that someone has access to Bartlett's personal medical records and has uploaded them to the web and linked to them in our article. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I've reverted all the recent changes, back to how the article stood before the changes of the last month. As well as medical records there were court documents being used as references, while other links were to apparent copyrighted infringements. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 13:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Helpful, thanks --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He published them himself. They're on his website. NuIotaChi (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Any thoughts about whether this individual is notable? I'm considering AfD. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Of the three sources currently in the article, none check out. Source 1 gives a 404 error. 2 doesn't mention him at all, and doesn't look like a good source even if it did. 3 is something about diving and also doesn't mention him, and that as well doesn't look like a reliable source for anything either. A cursory google search didn't turn up much either. Looks like a prime candidate for AFD to me. Zaereth (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Source one looks like a database and even when the link worked I am doubtful that it would have contained in-depth coverage. Source three is the website of the diving school that our article claims Bartlett is the managing director of; if it supported that claim it would clearly not be independent. If there's WP:GNG-supporting sources online, I am unable to find them amid all of the stuff about other John Bartletts. Agreed that notability seems questionable here Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Since he apparently raced in the '80s and early '90s, I'd imagine that if any sources exist they're likely pre-internet, which are valid sources, but don't count unless someone actually goes to the library to find them, and that's not any of our burden. Lacking any reliable, secondary sources, I'd say go ahead and nominate it. Zaereth (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this link would be more valid Maidstone Scuba at Companies House NuIotaChi (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you zoom into the image for ref 2, you can clearly see "Bartlett John Middleton" in the top left corner of the MRI. NuIotaChi (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There are several images in ref2, and maybe it is just that I don't know what to look for (what does MRI mean in this context?) but I cannot see "Bartlett John Middleton" anywhere, clearly or not. Even if I could, "his name is visible in a picture hosted by an unreliable source" is not exactly a compelling argument. (At any rate, if you want to argue to keep the article it's probably better to do so at the AfD at this point) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the source this isn't the type of documentation that articles should be based on, secondary sources are preferred. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I've listed it at Articles_for_deletion/John_Bartlett_(racing_driver) --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Steve Albini
This recently deceased musician and producer used to write a lot of transgressive stuff for underground magazines back in the 80s, including a review of Peter Sotos's Pure, published in Forced Exposure 'zine. It's one thing to say this piece of writing is vile (it is), it's another thing altogether to label him a pedophile on that basis. The recent edits should be rev-deleted, and the file that was recently added to commons should be either renamed or deleted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:23, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Edit: these are the edits in question. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Cameron Stewart
There was edit war which I thought was resolved (discussion at talk page along with posts at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring & Wikipedia:Requests for page protection resulting in 1 month of page protection) but an uninvolved editor who is also the manager of Multiversity Comics (industry outlet) posted an email they received which requests they take down an article for defamation reasons in part because the Cameron Stewart wiki article was using it as a source ("Your website continues to disseminate the defamatory statements which are false, malicious, and damaging. They have gained widespread exposure through a Wikipedia article citing your website as a source, exacerbating the harm caused by these falsehoods"). I'm not entirely sure if this is the right noticeboard to flag this but it seemed super sketchy (as if the edit war wasn't heading in the direction they wanted so now they're going after the sources directly). Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Naseem Hamed
No solutions either at EWN or ANI, so my next avenue is to bring this dispute here because it concerns BLP and RS.

User:ActionHeroesAreReal mistakenly insists on Naseem Hamed being labelled as British-Yemeni. Hamed was born in the UK, is a British national, has never lived in Yemen (from where his parents hail), is not notable for his ethnicity, and has only ever competed under a British boxing licence. User chooses to ignore all the relevant BLP lead section guidelines including MOS:ETHNICITY, MOS:IDENTITY, and MOS:FIRSTBIO. If Hamed is to be labelled as British-Yemeni, then by the same logic G Hannelius should be American-Swedish, Rishi Sunak should be British-Indian, and Humza Yousaf should be Scottish-Pakistani. We know it just doesn't work like that on WP.

User has brought up entertainment sites as sources –, – but the inclusion of those fails NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, as there are numerous RS of actual boxing expertise which correctly label him as solely British: "Few British boxers", "first British fighter", "British boxing legend", "British fighter's career", "most successful British boxer of all time", "British boxing prince", "the Brit".

I don't believe DR is necessary because rather than a content dispute, this is a clearcut case of a user not understanding the above guidelines as it relates to BLP. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From memory, these disputes have traditionally been resolved through discussion or RFC on the talk page. MOS:ETHNICITY does control the discussion, but neither version would be BLP violations. Is he a Yemeni citizen? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:41, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He appears to have been born a citizen of Yemen (unofficial translation for reader convenience. It adheres well to the original Arabic, IMO). In cases like this, where nationality actually is incident parents' nationality, it's important to reflect reliable sources' terming, as well as the subject's own (if any can be found). Neutrally, he's a British citizen of Yemeni parentage. Including parentage in the lede is unusual. His ethnicity is unstated (Yemen is multi-ethnic). JFHJr (㊟) 22:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, the subject clearly prefers both nationalities, per non-self-serving Instagram imagery. See the article talk page for details. JFHJr (㊟) 22:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Variety is not a reliable source for BLPs and should be removed. I'd do it, but the page is locked for now. JFHJr (㊟) 22:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reminded of the case of Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive355. MOS:ETHNICITY does suggest it should be British etc in such cases, but I do wonder whether we should really go against most sources and the subject's apparent preferences. That said, I'm not sure whether this is the case for Naseem Hamed. Nil Einne (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then there is also the Rina Sawayama example which showed how convoluted this is. RSes continue to call her British even though she did not hold UK citizenship. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources can indeed say/repeat errors. That's not the only factor in separating them from sources that just are not reliable. Editorial oversight, independence, and the like are just as important. And your point is a good topic for WP:RSN. But at BLPN we get to weigh how important article content is, biographically speaking. And we get to remove WP:UNDUE text for being factually incorrect or presented without accurate context, regardless of whether the source is reliable. The source can be reliable while editorial consensus casts doubt on any particular prose as undue. JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I find it questionable to say it's an error. I mean some of the sources may very well incorrectly think she's a UK citizen which would be an error. But in the case of Rina Sawayama, it's such a big deal, that it seems clear many sources continue to call her British despite being fully aware she is not a citizen. Heck I'm sure you can find sources that said something like "A hashtag in support of British singer Rina Sawayama who is ineligible for the BRIT award as she is not a citizen" or otherwise called her British while saying she was not a citizen in the exact same article. In which case the only way you can say the source was confused about her citizenship is if you can think their editors and writers are so crap they didn't notice they were talking about her not being a citizen which frankly is nonsense. The source was clearly aware that she wasn't a citizen and made the conscious choice to call her British despite that. I mean the whole point of the #SawayamaIsBritish hashtag is surely because most of these people are aware that she's not a citizen, otherwise the hashtag would have been something like #StopBeingRacist (since if she was a UK citizen but still excluded from the BRIT Awards for not being British, the exclusion would have a much different vibe). I don't see why we as editors get to accuse sources of errors just because we disagree with their definition of nationality or in particular, "Britishness". Even if we want to use a different definition on Wikipedia, that doesn't make other definitions "errors" but simply other definitions that seem perfectly reasonable in the wider spectrum of how you define nationality, or "Britishness" in particular. (And of course we know complicated British can be since some people reject that label despite being UK citizens and only UK citizens in terms of places with independent statehood. These people may instead call themselves Scottish etc. Some people will insist they must be called British despite this but it's fairly common that sources will again consciously support their decision to reject that label and not label them as such.) Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * IMO, the case of Shamima Begum presents a bright line for disregarding the views of the subject on this matter: a citable juridical or administrative decision that denies said nationality. Then they're only X-born, for example. Otherwise, the views and statements of subjects about their own nationality or ethnicity should take top order. Reliable sources help, but WP:BLPSPS are non-self-serving in matters of such basic nature. It's in the same bucket with birthdays. JFHJr (㊟) 01:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

To summarise, does self-identification via social media always trump secondary sources—even if numerous—or is it case by case? In the case of Hamed, we have two unreliable sources in the form of entertainment publications with no expertise in the subject's field (boxing), plus him self-identifying as British-Yemeni on social media. That stands in contrast to the seven secondary sources I provided above which label him solely as British, all of which can be considered reliable as it relates to boxing. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Case by case, mostly. What's important for the reader to understand the subject? There's a big difference between citizenship, nationality, and ethnicity. Sometimes they overlap, but there are significant distinctions. A citizen is part of a particular country. A national belongs to a particular nation, which is different from the country. For example, I have friends who are American citizens, but their nationality is Inupiaq or Athabaskan. Those nations are within the US, but separate from it. Ethnicity is more related to family lineage or where your DNA came from. The US is both my nation and country, yet my ancestors came from Britain, but the only ethnic British are the Britons (today called the Welsh). My ethnicity is actually Viking, who partly colonized Britain. Ethnicity itself seems like an unnecessary thing for the lede is most instances, unless there's some reason for it to be mentioned that early on. Nationality is similar, albeit maybe a little higher on the list of things that may be necessary. Citizenship is the really important thing, as in, where is this person from? But that differs from person to person so it has to be on a case by case basis. In this particular case, what benefit for the reader does one choice provide over the other? Or why is one worse than the other? Zaereth (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Case by case in every case. Find how a subject's own statements square with RS, and make an editorial decision. They're not always mutually exclusive even if they say different nationalities (eg, additional ones, only one, or only the most relevant). JFHJr (㊟) 01:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How, then, does this tally up with MOS:ETHNICITY, specifically: "... country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident" and "Ethnicity, religion, or sexuality should generally not be in the lead unless relevant to the subject's notability." I maintain he is notable primarily for his boxing career contested almost entirely in the UK, and not his Yemeni heritage. It absolutely has its place in Early life, but should not in the lead any more than Stipe Miocic should be labelled as American-Croatian. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That is true of the lede. The wider BLP discussion has been regarding how to factually state his nationality at all. But for the lede, yes, what you just referred to is correct. JFHJr (㊟) 02:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * One problem is that people tend to conflate the nation with the state (see Nationalism), and the policy doesn't get that deep into the distinctions. The country or state is the land controlled by a particular government. A nation is "a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." A great example is Palestine and Israel. Two nations in one state. What the policy is saying as that the most important thing we can tell the reader is where the hell on Earth is Waldo. Whether he's Irish or not is a far lesser concern... in his case at least. For Martin Luther King Jr., ethnicity is an important factor because it's very much central to understanding him and his struggle. For my Alaska Native friends, nationality is far more important to understanding their subsistence lifestyles, but nationality and ethnicity overlap greatly in their case whereas in my case they don't. (As a nation, the US is united only by common language and territory, not religion or ethnicity.) So the real conundrum is trying to answer the question of how it helps or hurts the reader's understanding, because both are reliably sourced. Zaereth (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * My problem with the current (locked) edition of the lead persists because of the hyphenation in particular. To call him British-Yemeni in WP's voice indicates to the reader that he is a citizen of both, even though "Including parentage in the lede is unusual" per User:JFHJr. Granted, we're going case by case, but is this case really that much of an outlier that we break with WP convention? Again, I bring up my seven RS provided above, which overwhelmingly describe him as British. His Yemeni heritage obviously need not be diminished, which is what Early life is for—just not the lead. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 14:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * He should be described as "British" only, per MOS:ETHNICITY. GiantSnowman 14:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

If he was born in the United Kingdom & has lived 'only' in the United Kingdom. Then, use "British". Otherwise, we'd be saying he lives in Yemen. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Whoever has responded, please weigh in at the article talk page so that a consensus can be formed. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Peter Sotos
I came across this from the discussion above. The subject seems to have primarily come to attention because of his involvement in a shocking crime many years ago. Since then he's had a career in related areas which while not illegal where he lives (I assume), has garnered further controversy. Coverage of this sort of stuff seems the make up the majority of secondary sources yet the article has a long list of his works not all of which I think received such coverage. I'm also concerned about linking people to him [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Sotos&diff=prev&oldid=1223100205] when there's no evidence these people's commentary of him received any secondary sources coverage. Some of this like the Bruce Benderson might be reliable secondary sources themselves so could perhaps be fine to use as sources on the subject and in that case it would probably be okay to mention Benderson, but not IMO when it's just Benderson analysed this person's work. While I'm sure these people willing associate with the subject or his works, it seems undue to mention it to me. I also wonder about the list of people who have described him as an influence which I did not remove. Do we really normally do that based only on primary sources? I just cannot imagine we'd say in the Taylor Swift article (notable) Youtuber X has described Swift as an influence based only on an interview. Perhaps it might be okay to include it in the article on Youtuber X. (Likewise I'm not so worried about people Sotos has called an influence in his article, I mean that is only a BLP issue for Sotos if anything.) Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * A quick note that this article has a lot to clean up for an editor in the mood to do so. POV, dead references, unreferenced material, and so forth. I whacked a couple things already, but life is full. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Operation Trojan Shield
Not sure about this, but as I have a COI anyway I thought it would be better to raise it here. At Operation Trojan Shield in the "see also" section we have a link to courtlistener.com, which lists details regarding cases of a small number of people accused through Operation Trojan Shield. It is only US cases, of which there were comparatively few, but it has the names of the accused in those cases. I don't know about where we sit with linking to court records, especially where the cases themselves are not discussed, although either way it shouldn't really be under "see also". I raised it on talk here. Any thoughts? - Bilby (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed all the court docs from the article per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Such sources should be removed on sight, regardless of any COI. Zaereth (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That article is NOT a Biography, it is about a police operation. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP policies and guidelines and even humor pages all apply wherever a living person is named. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Exactly. See the previous discussion here. (Different operation but same principles apply.) Zaereth (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Simon_Ekpa
Somewhat confused discussion about calling a living person separatist, nationalist, or both. If you can help, please do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Does any RS say "nationalist"? If so, does the implicit "nation" exist in a way that enjoys international recognition? If not, the subject is a separatist, as RS appear to state currently. The TP comment and line of reasoning only predecessors were separatist, considering the separation a fait accompli and subsequent activists "nationalist", either refers some wonderful unshared RS, or reflects a heaping spoonful of original research. JFHJr (㊟) 17:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for commenting! I intended this post as a WP:APPNOTE, hoping for people to join the existing discussion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll port my comment. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 17:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The same POV editing is occurring on the Biafra page regarding living person Simon Ekpa and the organization he founded and merely named "government in exile," and himself the org's "prime minister." WP:BLP content fork against consensus on Talk:Simon Ekpa. Any additional eyes on both articles would be appreciated! JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

BLP violation on article Vaush
here is the dif in question. User:Seth Rollins, Monday Night Messiah (there's no userpage, only talk page here) has done major BLP violation(s), citing twitter memes and drama youtube videos as sources. Looking at their user talk page, this seems to be a recurring issue with this user. A Socialist  Trans Girl  07:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * When the page was reverted to the last change, I was asked to check the talk page. I did. And it seems like you (looking at the many conversations regarding this person) have an agenda not to list the various controversies this creator has been involved with, even with more appropriate/reliable sources. I wasn't even given a chance to find a new source (despite YOU saying that exactly in the talk page) and instead, outright locked the page. Wikipedia should be neutral and transparent. It has no obligation to shield people from accusations of bestiality, pedophilia and sexual assault, especially when those are relevant, and are still relevant talking points in their career. Seth Rollins, Monday Night Messiah (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you think that using a YouTube video to source claims of beastiality, etc in a WP:BLP article is fine, then Wikipedia isn't for you. Wikipedia DOES have an obligation to ensure we don't include information that is damaging to individuals unless it is carefully and reliably sourced, and that the information is relevant, leading to a better understanding of the individual.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 10:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Vaush is a perennial target for BLP violations. Seth Rollins' contributions, most of which have been reverted. Primefac has indefinitely ECP'd the article. Reported to AIV. SWinxy (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This is on the order of what went on at Weingrod. That got WP:OS pretty quickly. I'm surprised the BLPSPS twitter link with the catchy tune is still unredacted, not even revdel. JFHJr (㊟) 19:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC) 【 Sorry this is random, but you're the last oversighter I walked past here. Please and thanks for any consideration for this one. JFHJr (㊟) 19:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)】
 * I've rev-deleted some edits. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Again! JFHJr (㊟) 23:05, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Emma D'Arcy - is the edit summary a violation of BLP?
The edit itself changed their pronouns from they to she, which is in itself an issue I believe. The edit summary says "Fixed grammar - Gender dysphoria is a serious illness and no one should use pathologies for political purpose. News and opinion articles, as well as the entertainment industry, are not reliable sources for mental health issues." which seems to be questioning her mental health. Doug Weller talk 07:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * See also User:Reginus Paulius Gryphus for some background. Besides stating there are only two genders, it says Democrats are following a fascist methodology and that "This false encyclopedia is a cesspool of the lowest kind of humans, people without any principles, morals and faith." Doug Weller  talk 07:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, re paragraph 1, diffs would help. It's arguable that news coverage is poor at stating science, but news may also present reliable secondary sources are valid for reference (more guidance at WP:RSN). Re paragraph 2, users are quite entitled to hold views that some or all other disagree with, but they get to enjoy WP:POV scrutiny as a result. A userpage like that is not a BLP problem but it is counterproductive; even when someone holds critical views (to include one's own colleagues who edit here), it's best for that someone not to give the impression those views might get in the way of editing neutrally. But when someone tells the world aggressively who they are, they're probably not lying, and we are all on notice for equally blatant POV edits. JFHJr (㊟) 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Looks like consensus might point to "they" per recent activity. Let's see if that consensus holds. JFHJr (㊟) 20:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed the edit summary. The user said, "News and opinion articles, ... are not reliable sources for mental health issues". Well, neither is this user. They can debate gender and pronouns as they wish, or not as it happens, but IMO it crosses the line when they state that someone has a serious illness. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Best answer. Thank you! JFHJr (㊟) 21:28, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think of the history at Vaush, just below? JFHJr (㊟) 21:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Alen Inoue has mixed blood or not?
May I put Alen list of half Japanese people? Hariman Muhammad (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Given that we have no article on Inoue, and that you cite no source for it, no. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Alexandre Pisano
Does Alexandre Pisano has half or mixed blood (between Japanese and European blood)? Can you put his name or not? Hariman Muhammad (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * See my response to your previous question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Maia Bouchier Biography
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maia_Bouchier

I'd like to draw attention to the Personal Life section of Miss Bouchier's profile. Her representatives and the individual have themselves tried to remove the reference to her confirming herself as being 'Bisexual' - with a citation link to the following article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/66464975

As you can see, the article simply references what Maia first said to her parents when trying to come out to them as homosexual for the first time. She finds the constant reinstatement of this citation baffling and would like it to be permanently removed from her profile.

Is this possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JA209 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have edited the article. The BBC source cited is ambiguous about Bouchier's sexuality – it quotes her as saying "I think I might be bisexual" but elsewhere implies that she is gay – but the other cited source in the section, based on an interview with Bouchier and her partner, explicitly calls her gay.
 * The reason that your edit was reverted is explained in the edit summary to the revert: "Unexplained removal of content". Simply removing text without explaining why will often be reverted by editors; if you had explained this issue in the edit summary the text calling Bouchier bisexual may well not have been reinstated. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

John Ramirez (minister)
I'd be grateful if someone would check this revert, as I am concerned I may have been over-zealous. Thank you. -- Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 13:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I would have made the same revert if I'd seen that edit. (Article has since been nominated for A7 speedy.) Schazjmd   (talk)  14:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 16:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Chuck Blazer
Eyes at this article welcome - keeps changing the subject's wife's name from the name given in the source cited to her married name. I have reverted and explained why we follow the sources but they are edit warring. GiantSnowman 17:04, 10 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The family is requesting anonymity. Hence the edits. Szankoed (talk) 18:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is her name really important per WP:BLPNAME given the sourcing is WP:VICE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, her name is very important per WP:BLPNAME. There are only eight people with that surname in the entire world. Using the maiden name effectively violates the family's privacy and their desire to create distance and anonymity. They are a private, non public family. Given the uniqueness of the surname, using it doxes the family.
 * The sport he is associated with has millions of fans. A sizable amount of hold very strong feelings about what he did and the repercussions of his actions. The more prevalent the publishing of his ex-wife's surname, the more the family becomes publicly associated with him and that increases the risk to their safety.
 * Yes, the surname was published in WP:VICE, but Wikipedia has a greater reach and more eyes due to its mission. Efforts are ongoing to remove that surname anywhere it is published to maintain the family's privacy and safety. Szankoed (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're not understanding the reason behind my question. Is having the name of his ex-wife that important to the article? Should her name just be removed outright? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I can see no reason to name her at all. Per BLPNAME we usually don't name spouses unless they're notable enough to have their own article, and this is a good example of why. I think BLPPRIVACY also applies. She's not at all notable, and it appears her only claim to fame is being the subjects former wife, and I can't see that it adds any value to the article whatsoever, so I'd just remove it entirely. Zaereth (talk) 04:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies, no I didn't understand your question correctly. I don't believe adding his ex-wife is important to the article. Yes, I believe it should be removed outright. Szankoed (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are in contact with the family, you should not be editing per WP:COI. Why had it taken you until now to declare the connection? GiantSnowman 19:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For reasons of their privacy. I'm not as familiar with all of these rules as others.
 * Based on the feedback from Morbidthoughts and Zaereth citing BLPNAME and BLPPRIVACY, I'm assuming her entry is cleared for removal. Szankoed (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So now we have a valid source removed, as well as the fact that he was married - so a weaker biography. Well done everybody. GiantSnowman 18:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the spouse line from the infobox. Per our infobox style guide, it should not have been there anyway, as it was not in the article; I also agree with comments of others about BLPPRIVACY. The Vice source looks possibly ok to me for adding depth elsewhere in the article, and you should feel free to use it for that. I think it would also be non-objectionable to add to the article that he was married (perhaps without the spouse's name, and perhaps not to the infobox) and later divorced; this is also in the source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * ...and yet you did not remove that he had 2 children even though that was not mentioned elsewhere in the article? GiantSnowman 20:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right, I likely should've also removed the 2 children from infobox. Thanks for catching that.  Your "Personal life" section looks reasonable to me, although I don't see the start/end dates for the marriage in the Vice source.  (I see the end date is in a Guardian obit, FWIW.) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Herschel Weingrod
There have been some allegations made based on a YouTube video. More eyes would be appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For context. Not verified by RS given WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It only says to not include allegations if they are not a public figure. I believe that they are a public figure, based on the criteria given in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Antny08 (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Allegations for WP:PUBLICFIGURE require multiple RSes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, we have to figure out which sources are reliable. There are many sources online about this incident, but most of them are not included on Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It would be appreciated for somebody to look through some of these sources to see if they are reliable or not. Antny08 (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Here are some sources here: What do you think of any of these sources? Antny08 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Garbage. There is absolutely no way we are going to include such content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What is happening with your user page? What happened? Antny08 (talk) 22:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My user page is of no consiquence here. Your behaviour may very well be if you persist in trying to cite grossly inappropriate sources for questionable content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am not going to argue with you on here, I do not understand why you are being so rude. Antny08 (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you would prefer to argue at WP:ANI, that could be arranged. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If such gross accusations are covered in RSes, then fine, but you're giving us gossip rags that are somehow worse than the Daily Fail.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Might as well cite InfoWars and Breitbart if we're gonna use garbage sources.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:20, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion civil, and help to find good sources. Antny08 (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The burden is on you to find good sources, since you're the one making the claims.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand why South Asian press is covering this. Are they prone to sensationalism or are the tabloids from there are really on the ball about optimising for searches? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Morbidthoughts, They tend to cover western Social media/YouTube drama more often than western outlets. I'm not sure why. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with the others that these are inappropriate sources. We're looking for multiple top-tier, newspaper of record-type sources for claims like these. Woodroar (talk) 22:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand, thanks for the insight Antny08 (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Antny08 got indeffed, the article got semi-protected, and there are not (yet) any other virulent proponents of the gross BLP violation that got not revdeld but WP:SUPPRESSed. I have watched the article. I hope others also do, for a while. But it might be alright to close this thread for now and re-post as necessary. WP:BOOMERANG got thrown hard at WP:ANI so it came back faster than you'd expect. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, at least one of the Youtubers behind this bit of drama presents himself as a "prank channel" so I'd suggest that these guys trying to... present someone in the way they did... being picked up by a press that likes to post Youtube drama does not meet the BLP bar. I've added the page to my watchlist. Simonm223 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Pepsi & Shirlie
is insisting on adding and adding again an unsourced "in popular culture" section of trivial 'factoids' to Pepsi & Shirlie – a WP:BLP, reverting to their preferred version using automated tools and boasting of how their years of experience allows them to do this. I'd like a couple of second opinions, please. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this is here. I already said "please continue editing" on the OP's talk page.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  16:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So you no longer stand by these edits re-adding this material and retract your threat to report me for vandalism for removing them again, but won't revert yourself? Uh huh. I'm not going to give you the opportunity to throw a 3RR-warning template on to my talk page with your automated tools by reverting your poor editing again. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with you reverting me, but please understand that there are editors patrolling recent changes. I am one. You edit was tagged as "unexplained section blanking" and edits with that tag are usually meant to be reverted quickly. Sorry for the mishap though.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  16:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And I have removed the warnings.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  16:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please don't blank sections of my talk page again.
 * Additionally, whatever the 'tag' said, I gave a full edit summary, which you didn't read in your hurry to click a button on RedWarn and score internet points. This is a misuse of automated tools, as were your reverts. That's three times today in under 20 minutes. I hope your score is better with the rest of your edits. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am sorry. You really don't need to be rude on your talk page. I retracted the warnings as I changed my mind on if they were appropriate or not. You may choose whether you wish to keep them or not. But I ask one thing: Please do not ever ping me again.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  16:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And I don't understand how Sorry for the mishap though. is not apologizing.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  16:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * TheTechie's edit history doesn't seem to show recurring problems. This revert has been dealt with. I think further excoriation is unnecessary. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Schazjmd: Not sure if I'd entirely agree. I've warned thetechie quite recently [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TheTechie&diff=prv&oldid=1221826678] for what seems to be similar reasons to here. They were doing RC patrolling and reverted when they shouldn't have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Cain_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=1221459272]. I don't think this is quite enough for sanction hence I'm just leaving this at BLPN rather than opening an ANI thread, but it is concerning in both cases they reverted obviously problematic content in BLPs apparently based primarily on tags and where the deleting editor offered at least some explanation in the edit summary. The last case was much more severe then here (albeit the worse bit was buried but IMO sufficiently explained in the edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peter_Cain_(politician)&diff=prev&oldid=1221458139]). I think thetechie needs to take a lot more care with RC patrolling or at least stay away from doing it on BLPs. Nil Einne (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And if I may make a, this is why I almost never touch BLPs. Honestly this is becoming too much, I'm considering a wikibreak.  thetechie@enwiki  :  ~/talk/  $  16:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @TheTechie, on the IP's talk page, you wrote Please remember I am not the one adding it, I am reinstating it. "Reinstating" content means you're taking responsibility for it. There's no good justification for unsourced trivia remaining when it's been challenged. If you can't find a good ref for the "in popular culture" entries, you shouldn't add them. Schazjmd   (talk)  16:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 81.187.192.168 was absolutely justified in removing the unsourced trivia. Per POPCULTURE "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Passing mentions, even if verifiable, aren't sufficient. See also this RfC: AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Charlene Amoia
I hope this is the right place for this, but the editor Dennis86Savanah persists on removing comments from the talk page of this actresses article. Another editor has already warned them, but they seem to be ignoring it. This account was made nearly four years ago and the only edits they've ever made were on the actresses article with the last few removing talk page comments. So this may be Conflict of interest Kcj5062 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

EDIT: Looking more at the history, there was also an IP editor that had also removed talk page comments. I think it may have been the same person that removed them while not logged in.Kcj5062 (talk) 00:08, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It is weird but this is a user conduct issue. If it continues, report it to WP:ANI. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Letby
This article is a BLP minefield and a half. The subject is convicted of murders, but the appeal process seems to be pending and at least one RS has disputed their conviction. There was a recent RFC on the lede where nobody seemingly discussed BLP concerns. There may have been canvassing muddling the RFC as well, given this is a charged subject.

The overall article seems overly detailed and quite reliant on primary sources, particularly in timeline of cases section. I do not believe WP:BLPCRIME applies here, but it could still use extra eyes and clean up to make the article meet Wikipedia standards. I am not very well versed with this kind of article, but it does appear to violate NPOV at first glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soni (talk • contribs) 00:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the section, I don't see any obvious WP:BLPPRIMARY issues. If you see something solely sourced to government sources, you should remove them right away. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Martin Schlaff
I ask for help. I deleted wild accusations from 2004/10 that never have been proven (bribes of 4,5 million Dollars). I did so, because on the talk page is written: „Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately.“ Gidi Weitz from Haaretz is carrying out a crusade against Mr. Schlaff since more then 15 years. The Attorny General of Israel did not find any material to accuse him of a fellony. Nevertheless these allegations are popping up again and again. My edit was reverted, I do not want to go into EW.--185.104.138.50 (talk) 15:57, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Interesting claim. Can you actually prove Weitz has been trying to destroy Schlaff's reputation for 15 years? WP:BLP applies equally to claims such as the one you've made. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 16:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Is Schlaff a WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Even then, PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple RS reporting on the allegations, not just Haaretz. If he is not a public figure, then the section should be removed under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A look at the article shows poor sourcing for a biography of a still-living person overall, with or without the section the IPv4 is referring to. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Nationality of Miriam Margolyes
We have reached a fairly amicable impasse on Miriam Margolyes's talk page regarding her nationality. As a result, we have compromised with the description "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an actress holding both British and Australian citizenship". Prior to that the fist sentence read "Miriam Margolyes OBE (/ˈmɑːrɡəliːz/ MAR-gə-leez; born 18 May 1941) is an English and Australian actress". Extra input from editors who have experience with resolving nationality would be helpful. The discussion is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes and a prior discussion in which I was talking to myself is at Talk:Miriam_Margolyes. The issue seems to arise regularly on Miriam's bio for some reason. The reference I have used is the Arnold Schwarzenegger example under "Nationality examples" at Manual_of_Style/Biography. Regarding "English" as a nationality there is a footnote from the above policy stating "There is no categorical preference between describing a person as British rather than as English, Scottish, or Welsh. Decisions on which label to use should be determined through discussions and consensus. The label must not be changed arbitrarily. To come to a consensus, editors should consider how reliable sources refer to the subject, particularly UK reliable sources, and whether the subject has a preferred nationality by which they identify". Burrobert (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Well, perhaps more Peter Lorre than Arnold Schwarzenegger. No political confusion of an "Austrian-American" order. But yes, same result, use the conjunction. Chronological order around the and is best, unless dual-citizenship born (maybe subject's preference, nation of birth, nation relating most to notability, per consensus). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:41, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You could always drop nationality / citizenship from the first sentence, does it have to be shoehorned into the first sentence of every BLP? -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 21:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Some editors seem obsessed with pinning national labels onto people and it's often not simple or significant.  In this case, she has Belorussian, English, Scottish and Polish heritage but the main adjective I would attach to her off the top of my head is Jewish.  See this recent Vogue profile which variously describes her as a "British eccentric ... Jewish lesbian ... illustrious thespian ... raunchy raconteur".  Australia doesn't come into it and that seems more a connection of her partner. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She's an Australian citizen and resident. BoldGnome (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Dragan Šolak (businessman)
Please see this edit request about this article's Money laundering investigations section. The name of the section is misleading, as it could imply Šolak was involved in money laundering investigations, which he was not. This section is not about Dragan Šolak directly but rather a media company owned by him and its reporting into Slovenian government misconduct. Disclosure: I am employed by United Group and Dragan Šolak, which is why I am seeking review by others. AlexforUnited (talk) 08:18, 25 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Ok, I took a look, and I agree with you. If the info provided is correct, then it appears the subject was alleging harassment by the authorities, and the head of those authorities was later arrested for doing some illegal investigations. Do I have that right? (The section is a little hard to read, like the syntax of the translations was a bit off or something, so I had to read it a few times to be sure what it said.)


 * The section title does indirectly imply some wrongdoing on the subject's part, so it makes sense to change it to a more neutral title. But what? I don't know. What would you suggest would be a better title? Zaereth (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response! You are correct in your reading of this section.


 * In my original request I thought it best to remove this section in its entirety rather than rename it. This is because the information itself does not seem appropriate for a biography about Šolak because it is about a business he owns as a minority shareholder, that owns the media that broke the story about the investigation. Also because he is not the main target or focus but one of many in this alleged corruption scandal. To put it simply, the misconduct is not about Šolak.


 * Please let me know if I can provide further clarity. AlexforUnited (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I can see a good argument for removing it entirely, as it seems to be solely about the company and doesn't really mention the subject's involvement in any way. Of course, the section also isn't in any way negative towards the subject but more so toward the government agency, so a little rephrasing and a new title could make that more clear as well. I could see it going either way. Zaereth (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I see what you are saying about rewording. I am currently presenting deletion over rewording because even if the language was different, the content is still not pertinent to Dragan Šolak. However, if you think rewording might be better perhaps I can present some language for you to review. Other editors can weigh in here but I maintain deletion is the most appropriate option and I would need other editors to do it on my behalf due to my conflict of interest


 * Please let me know if you have any more thoughts. AlexforUnited (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I'm teetering on the fence, so I don't have much of an opinion either way. This answer is going to be a little long, so bear with me here. I can't read the sources in question, so it's really hard for me to speak on the specifics. This should be discussed by people who can read the sources fluently and properly judge their reliability and weight.


 * WP:Due weight and WP:BALANCE are probably the two main things I see as a possible issue right off the bat. We should apportion information in the article by the same prominence they have in reliable sources. It's sort of like if we weigh all the sources on a scale, with sources containing this particular information on the other side of the scale. How much space in the article does it deserve. Right now, we're at over 40% of the article devoted to this one thing.


 * Is that fair? I don't know. We have quite a large selection of sources for a very small article, which seems fishy to me. (Not that it means something's wrong, but begs the question of why we need so many to support so few words.) But how do they compare to those sources used for this one section? We have to measure not only the length of each article, but how much of that article is devoted to any info it's supporting in our article. We also have to factor in the weight given by the source itself, because all sources are not equal. (For example, a book by a reputable publisher on astrophysics would carry more weight for info about supernovas than a pop-culture magazine or a newspaper.)


 * See what I mean? It needs to be determined by people who can fluently read the sources. Does it deserve almost 50% of the article? 20%? 10%? Anything less would be smaller than a single sentence, so maybe it doesn't deserve to be in the article at all? I could see easily summarizing it down to a sentence or two. There's really no point in having a section that's less that three paragraphs long, so all of this could easily be worked into the timeline of the "career" section without subdividing it into subsections, and that would eliminate the section title. Sometimes breaking things into sections can create an imbalance in and of itself, because it gives it more prominence than it deserves by walling it off under a catchy headline. Those are the things I suggest you look into and focus on, but it really has to be decided by people who can read and are familiar with all the sources. For the original question you asked here, however, yes, I think the section title is misleading and should be dealt with one way or the other. Zaereth (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this very well thought out explanation! It is very helpful. AlexforUnited (talk) 06:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Moira Deeming
There are blatantuntruths and false information in the biography of Moira Deeming Victorian politician. This is outrageous.She is accused of organising an “anti trans rally” when she did no such thing. She had organised a “Let Women Speak” rally, which was advocating for Women’s rights to have safe spaces and sport competitions for biological women. It was her right under the tenants of free speech to hold this rally. In addition Deeming is accused of enviting far right groups, to this rally. That is pertinently untrue. In fact these groups gatecrashed the event. This became a convenient aspect twisted and used to smeer Deeming. Wikipedia is spreading falsehoods and untruths in this biography of Deeming. Sources Australian Womens Forum, Moira Deeming herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyfox Gazelle (talk • contribs) 06:37, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The proper place to discuss this issue is Talk:Moira Deeming, where several experienced editors are explaining the relevant policies and guidelines. Wikipedia cares about what sources independent of Deeming say about her, not what she and her associates say about her. Cullen328 (talk) 07:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * the "anti-trans" characterisation is discussed on the talkpage Cullen points to, but re. "inviting far-right groups": the article says no such thing. It says that Neo-Nazis attended the rally, but as far as I can see makes no comment on who (if anyone) invited them. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed many, many times in the articles talk. @Skyfox Gazelle you can expect a report on a noticeboard concerning your comments in the article's talk when I've put my children to bed later tonight. This project is no place for your transphobic comments. <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> 07:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Martin Nowak
In this edit the discussion of Martin Nowak was removed, I believe incorrectly. Can it be restored? Gumshoe2 (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * It was archived by a bot because there had been no comments on the thread in nine days. You can unarchive it if you want, though given that nobody had previously commented on the thread in more than a week I don't know how much more engagement it's likely to get. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How do I unarchive? This issue has come up before and will almost certainly come up again, so I think it is important to get some consensus. Is there a better venue than BLP noticeboard? Gumshoe2 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You asked the proponent of the controversial content whether there existed any reliable sources to back up the opinion piece upon which said content relied. Over a week went by, with no RS followup from the proponent. The consensus is therefore against the proponent's content ideas, based on the one source. Silence is sometimes meaningful. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also... the wall of text from the proponent was probably a major factor in why regulars here read a little, skipped to the end, (agreed with you), and didn't feel compelled to comment. It's not you, it's the other guy. JFHJr (㊟) 23:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Stockwell Day
I have updated the Stockwell Day article from the opening line "...is a former Canadian politician..." to "...is a Canadian former politician..." a number of times over the past two days. Another user has reverted those changes. My reasoning is that he is not formerly Canadian; he's Canadian no matter what. He could change professions - he could become "...a Canadian journalist and former politician". When the article says "former Canadian", it reads like he gave up his Canadian citizenship. Any eyes appreciated. --164.64.118.102 (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A recent (2022) discussion about MOS and "former" indicates that individual editors differ on the correct word order in such a case. Schazjmd   (talk)  13:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It appears that discussion landed on Bruce Willis being described as American first, and a retired actor second. --164.64.118.102 (talk) 13:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was the local consensus on that article. I wish that the MOS would address the nationality/former structure, as it seems to be a common point of disagreement, but multiple experienced editors argued on both sides of the question so I don't think there's community-wide consensus for a specific word order. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no BLP policy issue here. This is entirely a matter of style. Cullen328 (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

IP rape tagging
While patrolling for BLP violations, I noticed that an IP editor is tagging apparent perpetrators and victims of rape as such. I'm concerned that all sorts of policies may be being broken, especially over claims that have not been tested in law. I'd appreciate a view. [ Special:Contributions/218.214.102.224] -- Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * There's some issues there, for sure. I've reverted one edit and left a BLP CTOP notice, but don't have the bandwidth to check all of the edits right now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I removed rape categories from 6 people, some of which had never been convicted of rape. Dougal18 (talk) 12:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Mandla Lamba
There is a ton of libelous erroneous information on this page. It needs to be scrubbed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff7241968 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Help us out here. What's the issue? Woodroar (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with @Woodroar concerns. While there are certainly many negative and unflattering references in this biography, that is different than “libelous” and “erroneous” information. Can you cite some examples of which parts of the article can be documented to fit those descriptions? The article appears to be reasonably well sourced. Go4thProsper (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

David P. Weber
Recently, a posted added poorly sourced material of a libelous nature purporting to report on his resignation from University of Maryland. Two of the sources cited are the same article, just with different hyperlinks. The allegations of the sources are that the subject of the BLP supposedly discriminated against chinese students at UMD. Yet, none of the articles indicate that a finding of discrimination happened, and two other MD system universities hired him after the supposed discrimination. In other words, the inclusion of the material violates BLP standards, and is not relevant to what Weber is known for, which is being an american whistleblower, author and researcher in fraud and forensic accounting. Esvabird (talk) Esvabird (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the sources, they are independent of each other. The allegations do not need to be proven true, they just need RS to verify that they exist. Student media WP:RSSM are reliable for their communities and this story was covered by a national higher education publication. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Here is a diff of the contested material: Diff.


 * I am the one who added it. It was reverted by an anonymous editor who contends that it violates BLP as "unsourced or poorly sourced".  In my view it does not violate BLP.  The disputed text is neutrally phrased, without detail, and plainly tracks the three separate reliable sources that reported on the subject event on four occasions.  The material is unflattering, and surely unwelcome to the article’s subject, but is uncontested beyond rote denials of wrongdoing by the subject and his attorney.  Further, the subject article describes the subject’s university teaching activities in detail, in two separate sections.  The inclusion of a single sentence reciting the reliably-sourced and contemporaneously reported circumstances of the subject’s resignation from one of those positions is entirely appropriate, and not a BLP violation.


 * The anon editor and I agreed that we weren't going to agree and rather than edit war we believed it best to bring the issue directly here. See the article talk page for that brief discussion as well as a broader history of the article.  I'll make a note of this report on the article Talk page.  Thanks for your views.  JohnInDC (talk) 02:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Based on the common edits to the Weber article and the Death of Jeffrey L. Smith, the IP address and Esvabird are the same and have a conflict of interest with those articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have initiated an attempt at a major cleanup of the article based on WP:NOTCV and also WP:BLPPRIMARY reliance of WP:BLPCRIME allegations of another person. I haven't finished but I find the amount of detail and citation to primary sources reflect personal knowledge of the topic. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Assuming that WP:PUBLICFIGURE - 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 - is the justification for inclusion of the content, it also says If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too. I'm wondering why Weber's comments/statements are deliberately being left out.<b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:blue"> Isaidnoway </b><b style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:#03B54F">(talk)</b> 08:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * When the allegations first surfaced, Weber and / or his attorney told WAMU the comments were being taken out of context and that the quotes were not his exact words. Following the resignation and the University's finding of his having violated the school's nondiscrimination policy, two articles reported that the attorney was "unable to comment" beyond confirming the resignation, and the third (Higher Ed) reported that several attempts to obtain comment from Weber or the attorney had been fruitless.  It sounds to me like they denied (well, "explained") the allegations until they couldn't; then stopped.  IMHO the most accurate statement would be, "Weber initially denied wrongdoing" (or whatever other words you like) and leave it at that.  To my ears that sounds almost worse, but I don't know if the sources support more.  All that said, I don't feel that strongly about it one way or the other, except that any new edits should mirror the sources.  JohnInDC (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It looks in any case as this material has (at least as of now) been removed altogether in the course of a broader cleanup of the article, perhaps mooting this discussion. JohnInDC (talk) 14:42, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The disputed material about his resignation was removed by the anonymous ip. It just has not been reinstated yet pending discussion. Whether it should be included (WP:DUE) needs to be considered in context after the removal of all the autobiographical CV cruft that was cited to much weaker sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it came out with this edit. I agree though that if the article winds up substantially streamlined and neutralized (as it were) then these reports may or may not warrant inclusion.  Thanks for all your good efforts.  JohnInDC (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise his academic career was redundantly listed outside the "University teaching" subheader and that you had reinstated the disputed material there. Whatever items that are supported by secondary RS can be reinstated into that section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * In reading the 3 reliable sources, the context is more important than whether there was a denial or not. He accused a group of Chinese students of cheating. They (with others?) in turn accused him of racism after he allegedly made several tirades about Chinese students and their culture. The incidents were investigated by the university and found in violation of their non-discrimination policies. He resigned afterwards complaining about the lack of support by the administrators against cheating. The denial is implicit. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Neil Young’s sons.
All throughout Neil Young’s Bio his son Ben is called Zeke in all photos and when referring to him. In the few photos you have put up he is called Zeke. Nothing is correct all false. It must sadden Ben to be improperly referenced. Both sons have cerebral policy and Ben has the milder case and did have a successful egg farm. It must be hard living in his father’s spot light and not being looked upon as his own self right down to being mixed up with his brother. Please correct this oversight. Sincerely, Lauren. 2601:189:4180:DA0:111E:3E3:7919:7284 (talk) 02:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Which article? I don't see any family pictures in Neil Young. --Onorem (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is one mention of Zeke and several of Ben in the article Neil Young; I am not seeing any places where Ben is incorrectly referred to as Zeke. The IP needs to be more specific about what they think needs changing and in which article. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you're talking about images that don't actually appear in this article, perhaps they are hosted locally at en.wiki or at commons. Please copy and paste the URL you're seeing "all photos" in. Otherwise I'm the third to confirm your concerns are not in the article itself. There's no conflation at all. JFHJr (㊟) 06:22, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I checked Commons and I didn't see anything obvious. I'm wondering if the complaint is about the cited sources themselves? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I liked your idea so I looked into it. No sources that support mentions of the sons have images that jumped out at me. None confuse them, either. I did remove an apparent ref that looked like it failed WP:V/WP:NOR but supported other text in the paragraph. I think it's ok to close this BLPN post whenever anyone else is satisfied we looked and didn't find any problems the OP could have been describing. JFHJr (㊟) 22:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be closed to allow follow-up by the IP address before the archive. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Debbie Currie
Could someone familiar with WP:BLP policy, along with WP:N and probably WP:NOT, please take a look at the Debbie Currie article? It seems problematic to me for multiple reasons that I hope should be self-evident, but due to external factors I'm reluctant to try to deal with it myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you Andy! I didn't aim for the jugular, but I used scalpel and some sutures. At least two other editors appear to have worked on this since your post. Commenting content-wise, I truly value your contributions here, and I hope you'll consider making any changes on the article or comments here that you think are helpful. If you'd like to discuss the value of any remaining sources/content without characterizing any editors, proponents even of nonsense, or their behavior, I would enjoy seeing your work or words. I'm all ears (eyes). JFHJr (㊟) 02:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments, and thanks likewise to everyone who has helped to clean up the article. And having seen how much material has been removed, and what remains, I think I'm now justified in suggesting that the article now fails to demonstrate notability: essentially, we are in a WP:BLPIE situation, where the only significant coverage of Ms Currie beyond the tabloid-style gossip now (justly) removed concerns the 'You Can Do Magic' single, that Currie may or may not have sung on, apparently created for a Cook Report 'expose' that seems to have been something of a non-event, having failed to get the record anywhere of significance in the charts. If this episode needs coverage on Wikipedia at all, it is almost certainly in the Cook Report article, rather than in a single-episode 'biography'. The article describes Currie as a former journalist, but fails to provide evidence that her journalistic career as such attracted any real attention from independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there. Biggest coatrack is mommy. There are probably more, but I found refs that failed V and couldn't even use them after trying. See the article talk page. LOTSOFSOURCES, and BLP1E, and sort of a biography of failure. JFHJr (㊟) 05:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I ported the relevant passage to The Cook Report. If consensus agrees with that, it'll more clearly show the 1E nature of the BLP. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Richard Gadd date of birth
I am trying to gain consensus on how to best handle the date of birth in the "Richard Gadd" article. There are multiple sources stating different years, and there were frequent edits to the year of birth until yesterday, when I added hidden text asking that it not be changed until editors checked the talk page. On the talk page, I discussed a number of different sources and their reliability, none of which were "generally reliable" per the perennial sources noticeboard. All of them are in agreement that his month and day of birth are May 11, but they do not agree on the year (1989 or 1990). Eventually, since all the sources were in agreement that the year was either 1989 or 1990, I added this to the article, especially considering the WP:DOB policy. I was doing more research, and I was able to eventually find a "generally reliable source" (The Independent) that gave his age at the time of the interview (30 in October 2019), but no day or month of birth. Usually something like "Template:Birth based on age as of date" in a case like this, but there are so many different sources debating his year that I feel this case is unique. It still leaves the WP:DOB issue unresolved, as does whether WP:CALC with a large number of semi-reliable sources that agree on birth day and month, with one "generally reliable" source that gives an age, can be used to deduce a birth date of May 11, 1989. This page is currently a top 20 article and BLP and so far no one has added to the discussion on the talk page I started. If you are interested, please contribute at: Talk:Richard Gadd. Thanks Wikipedialuva (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Since we can't nail down a year, and since this is a living person, how about we leave it out altogether? How does having a fuzzy range for a DOB add value to this article? Living people can clear this up themselves, if they want to, or they can have us wait for a reliable source or an obituary. There are no deadlines here, in any sense. JFHJr (㊟) 18:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Pornnappan Pornpenpipat
IP editor changed the birth year from 1997 to 1995. I'm not sure if this source consider to be reliable? But most of sources that she is born in 1997. - Jjpachano (talk) 10:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No, that source has all the hallmarks of a non-reliable source. It's a gossip article. I didn't look into any other pages on the website, though. For more opinions, re-post at WP:RSN. I think content based on this source should be removed along with the source itself. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 18:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Bagrat Galstanyan
Hello. There is an ongoing disruption in Bagrat Galstanyan article who is a living person, a serious allegation was added about him on 11 May, then restored repeatedly by the user with no consensus. This despite my attempts to demonstrate that the allegation is in clear conflict with Wikipedia policies such as WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG. The source in question for this serious claim is a newspaper PDF page of “The Armenian Mirror-Spectator” from 2013. This source is very little known, no actual established reliable sources confirmed this claim in 2013, and as I said the original source from 2013 isn't an established reliable source considering also the severe allegation it's making. All of this is in clear conflict with Wikipedia policies of WP:BLP and WP:REDFLAG and WP:ONUS. I think the noticeboard should be aware of the situation in the article and the libelous information should be removed until it is shown to be substantiated by a number of high quality sources, which is far from the case at the moment. AntEgo (talk) 08:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the Armenian Mirror Spectator pdf, the source seems reliable. However, the editors acknowledged that the article is just a republication of a statement of the accusers. That means there's no independent fact checking. I don't know anything about the reliability of the second source, civic.am but it reports or relies on the original AMS article and seems to be an editorial or opinion column in itself. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Morbidthoughts "However, the editors acknowledged that the article is just a republication of a statement of the accusers. That means there's no independent fact checking." – Yes, you're right, this is one of the reasons why the accusation shouldn't be in a living person's wiki article, this allegation cannot be verified factually, it's just an uncorroborated accusation that no independent credible source confirms. Even more reason why it shouldn't be in a WP:BLP article, also in breach of WP:REDFLAG and WP:LIBEL which says to delete libelous material if it's been identified.
 * And if you look at the article, even more diabolical claims are being added based on that one 2013 newspaper, these are seriously concerning for a WP:BLP article: if we gave every unfounded accusation light on Wikipedia especially on living person articles, then Wikipedia is not Wikipedia anymore, that's why I believe we have many policies and specifically strict ones on living persons. The second source as you noted is an opinion piece and an unknown news website, this website might be government affiliated but I can't verify because it doesn't even have an "About Us" page. It basis the opinion piece on the same 2013 newspaper's unproven accusations.
 * In conclusion, the 2013 newspaper's serious accusations are not collaborated or fact-checked by independent reliable sources, therefore it's libelous and violates several wiki policies and should not be in an article about a living person. AntEgo (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * First, you should be careful throwing around words like libel, diabolical, unfounded, etc... It makes you come off as very emotionally invested in all of this, which in itself raises some red flags. That said, Morbidthoughts appears to be agreeing with you, so no need to argue with him.


 * I agree as well. This is all based on a statement by the church and handed out to its parishioners. There's no editorial oversite or fact checking, and, while the newspaper itself may be reliable, they take no ownership of the info and clearly say it's just the church's unedited rebuttal.


 * That means you have a green light to go ahead and remove the info from the article. Calmly and stoically explain to the user that they need very good sources, what's wrong with these sources, give them a link to this discussion, and if it continues report them at WP:ANI for repeatedly ignoring BLP policy after they've been warned sufficiently. Zaereth (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zaereth Thanks for your input. FYI, I do agree with Morbidthoughts and yourself, just tried to lay out my thoughts for last time in the previous comment and update what happened in the article, sorry if it came off as emotional but maybe that's because I got tired of users ignoring core wiki policies in the article and even further expanding based on that one 2013 newspaper claims that as you noted, isn't fact-checked, isn't collaborated by independent credible sources, and is just unfounded accusation to a living person which as far as I know and you also confirmed, are strictly not tolerated on Wikipedia. I will remove the section, and will link this discussion in my edit summary and will also restate the policies that are being violated in the summary. AntEgo (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The entire article is built around a single primary source... and his college thesis. By BLP rules it should not have been made at all. There were literally no inline citations before I started making edits. You're trying to remove one of the few times this guy has been mentioned in the media before leading protests to topple the Armenian government. If we were following wikipedia's rules than the article should be put up for deletion entirely. Scu ba (talk) 00:01, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why are you pushing for this to be included when his recent political dissidence is not mentioned in the article? Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * So why can't we just omit the opinion part, like I had, and just leave in "he was criticized" and then report on the things that actually happened and appear in more than one source? Scu ba (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * First, you should not restore disputed information that is still under discussion. Due to the sensitive nature of BLP articles and it's potential to cause very real harm to living people, we need to be extremely careful and always err on the side of caution, so a clear consensus needs to be achieved 'before the material is restored, not the other way around. This is not just a suggestion but a very clear part of the policy. See: WP:BLPRESTORE. In other words, it's a very bad thing to do and would not look good for you if this is brought before ANI.


 * We rely on secondary sources for any contentious information, not primary sources like the letter from the church. We need a source that has done their own investigation of the facts and selected opinions they feel is relevant, rather than cherrypicking our own. Taking information directly from a primary source is doing the job of of a newspaper reporter instead of an encyclopedic researcher, and we're not reporters. See: WP:NOTNEWS and WP:No original research. Aside from protecting our subjects from unnecessary harm, this also protects us from any possible legal repercussions. Secondary sources take all legal liability for the info they report on, and that shields us from any liability, because we are trusting them to stay within the lines, and they have staffs of lawyers to fight for them and their reporters. When we do the job of a reporter, we not only open up Wikipedia to any liability, but also to any editors who added the information. Yes, you may end up in court, and you can bet Wikipedia isn't going to cover your lawyer's expenses like a newspaper would. That's not a legal threat, but a reminder that it is a very real possibility in today's sue-happy world. These policies exist to protect everybody, including our editors.


 * Personally, I don't have time right now to look into any other sources you may have added, but I'd suggest abiding by policy and removing it until consensus is achieved here one way or another, because so far the sources that were examined by us BLPN regulars did not come near to cutting the muster. I'll have more time to look into this further in the next day or so. If, on the other hand you think the subject is not notable and does not pass WP:General notability guidelines, then that may be so, but it's an entirely different matter, in which case you can simply nominate it for deletion at WP:AFD. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The only problem is that his effort to mortgage off a church is public record. Scu ba (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * We can't use public records as sources. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. We need very reliable, WP:Secondary sources. And if he did anything illegal, then WP:BLPCRIME may also come into play, in which case he'd need to be convicted in a court of law before we could include it. We take WP:BLP policy very seriously, so I'd suggest reading it and understanding it before doing any edits to articles about living people. Zaereth (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Zaereth Unfortunately Scuba restored their edit again, this time reverting user @Russ Woodroofe, . Scuba supposedly added new sources, but completely ignored your comment about the importance of very reliable secondary sources. If you look at their added sources, in the first diff, they revert and restore the PDF 2013 newspaper that we discussed already (nothing new), and they cite this unknown website as source which is an opinion piece, link.
 * In their second diff, Scuba supposedly adds "more" sources which are the following: a primary source of the Canada church with no criticism of Galsytanyan (doesn't even mention his name), and an additional source which is literally the same Mirror-Spectator but a different article , and this one doesn't mention any sort of criticism of Galstanyan either even tho it's cited as such in Scuba's edit. Scuba's basically claiming "more" sources which in reality are low-quality and even primary / opinion pieces in a BLP article they have been cautioned about several times already, and most importantly, these "more" sources don't even support Scuba's restored “criticisms” text. How is this type of behavior acceptable and could an administrator take a look at this already? AntEgo (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This isn't a great place for discussing editor behavior, and most of the regulars here aren't admins. This board is for discussing BLP policy. Unfortunately, I am rather busy in real life and don't have time to go through all the sources right now. If an editor is behaving badly, then the place to report it would be WP:ANI, because that's where all the admins hang out. Just be sure you've tried every other option first and go there with "clean hands", or it could turn around and bite you. Zaereth (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @AntEgo Bizzare that an account without a page (with less than 500 edits) is trying to lecture me about editor behavior, you're the one citing a "consensus" on the BLP talk page, meanwhile, this conversation is STILL OPEN and NOT CLOSED. You're trying to jump the gun here. Again, him being VOTED OUT OF BEING PRIMATE is a real thing that happened, if you want to get admins involved go ahead, but your hands aren't clean here either. Scu ba (talk) 23:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I’m citing consensus because in case you’re not aware, you’ve been repeatedly editing against the current BLP consensus, you literally don’t have consensus when in fact you should have a definite one especially in strict cases like WP:BLP and the type of information you're adding. And I’ve been here longer than you and may have been lurking/reading Wikipedia longer too, so please avoid the hyperbolic language. What’s the issue here is that you’ve been asked by several users to only cite very good credible sources especially in a strict WP:BLP topic and considering the “criticisms” controversial info you keep restoring, and you continue to add low quality sources as I’ve shown in my comment above. This is a questionable behavior at the very least, and you shouldn’t act like this considering what several users commented here or reverted you in the article. AntEgo (talk) 01:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Under WP:BLPUNDEL, these disputed assertion should not be reinstated until consensus is achieved to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Carney
Article by the strad magazine and following edits are incorrect and potentially libelous. EEOC claim was brought against the the Baltimore symphony orchestra and not Jonathan carney. The claim was rejected by the EEOC in 2023 as unwarranted and was denied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edwardcarney (talk • contribs)
 * Your removal of this content, first under an IP and then under this account, have all been reverted. The source appears to confirm what is expressed in the article. I also fear, based on your username, you might have a conflict of interest. -- Zim <b style="color:darkgreen">Zala</b> Bim <sup style="color:black">talk 11:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I added some more context based on what I could find in reliable sources. The question is whether WP:NPF should apply to Carney. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael D. Aeschliman
The subject of this article is persistently being misrepresented by 174.208.235.142  as a "Teacher, Innkeeper and B&B owner", without any valid supporting citations. 174.208.235.142 adds statements about Aeschliman's alleged occupation and about how he inherited certain buildings, again without providing evidence.

The obvious purpose is to mischaracterise Aeschliman. In fact, as all the evidence shows, the subject of the article is an eminent, well-known university professor, writer, scholar and literary critic.

The subject's biography section has also been deleted by 174.208.235.142 without good reason.

Moreover, 174.208.235.142 has gratuitously attached warnings to the article about a "major contributor" having a "close connection" with the subject, and that some of the article's sources may not be reliable. No evidence of this has been provided on the article's "Talk" page. There is a fair range of contributors to the article; its citations are numerous and, as far as one can tell, legitimate.

There is no evidence of serious, bona fide editing by 174.208.235.142. On the contrary, there is reason to believe that this is a case of vandalism by 174.208.235.142, seeking to ridicule Aeschliman, possibly for personal or ideological reasons.

Please take measures to prevent this recurrent behaviour by 174.208.235.142.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamara Santerra (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Scintillating edit history there. See Sockpuppet investigations/A. Roderick-Grove for more. 'S all from me for now. JFHJr (㊟) 20:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The following account appears to be sock-puppets and should be added to the investigation:
 * A. Roderick-Grove
 * Coriakin the Wise
 * Tamara Santerra
 * Lexical Paws
 * WoollyBear
 * Chuzzlewit23
 * Tiltonalum
 * There could be more.  174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Tamara Santerra (who left the above comment but didn't sign it) is almost certainly the biographical subject and a Sockpuppet account. The notability of Michael D. Aeschliman is questionable.  Many references go to blank pages or dead links and appear to be almost entirely authored by sock-puppet accounts (several of which have already been cited for COI issues) and connected contributors listed on the subject's talk page.   The sources either don't cite the subject or don't say what's claimed in the article. The subject appears to have authored a few introductions to obscure and unknown works by other authors, for which there are no reliable sources.  In terms of the subject's work as an innkeeper (which might be notable), there are references that are easy to find online.   174.197.69.37 (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you've found blank refs, first consult an internet archive website or two. If no good archive, or if the archived version is clearly not a WP:RS, then remove if they fail WP:V. JFHJr (㊟) 02:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I've stricken the sockupppet OP. The socks edited living academics' articles. Any additional eyes to review and revert the socks' edit histories would be greatly helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * The socks created Conrad Hughes – are either Conrad or Michael's articles encyclopedic? I think they don't look it, and I know this isn't AfD. But both look like a BLP sock turd to me. Anyone here into academiacs have an opinion? JFHJr (㊟) 21:54, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If sock-puppets and non-existent or unreliable citations are necessary to establish the pages, then the subjects, by definition, are not notable. 174.197.71.135 (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The Hughes page was created shortly after the two subjects participated in a symposium together.  Like Aeschliman, there do not appear to be any reliable secondary sources for Hughes.  Both pages reply on the same group of socks. 174.197.71.135 (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Great edits on those articles. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 01:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Scoot Henderson
The sentence "Henderson has achieved two of the three worst single-game plus-minus totals (-56 & -58) in NBA history." is very negative but I think it would be appropriate to add it to the WP:LEAD of this WP:BLP. It should be noted that this statistic has only been fully tracked since 1996, so maybe the phrase NBA history should be tweaked. Advice?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently the body of the article doesn't even say that. And judging by the cited source it would be at best misleading: Henderson's -56 is not outright the third-worst plus-minus total in NBA history; it is matched by Miles Bridges. So he really has two out of the  worst.  I don't know enough about basketball to have an opinion on whether this is an important statistic to include in the lead, but if you, I suggest you phrase it as something like "In March 2024, Henderson broke the record for the lowest single-game plus-minus total in NBA history". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also matched by Jeremiah Robinson-Earl according to Basketnews.com (Not related to Basket News, aka Basketnews.net).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Do the weight of the sources justify its inclusion in the lead or do you just think it's important? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)]]
 * Reviewing the sources, Yardbarker and Defector Media, I'm not sure if these sports blog support inclusion in the article much less the lead. Where is the mention in mainstream sports sites like ESPN and SI or newspapers? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * plus-minus is an unusual statistic for basketball. In other sports (especially hockey) it is a widely respected statistic. For basketball it is an important enough statistic that it became a part of official box scores in 2007. However, for most basketball experts, adjusted plus-minus statistics like real plus-minus, box plus-minus or estimated plus-minus are considered more indicative of individual performance. However, raw plus-minus is the one in box scores. The statistic does not get a lot of press, so his record is not covered in mainstream sports sites. Other less important sports sites cover these stories such as ClutchPoints does here, where they are kind enough to note that "single game plus-minus is not indicative of a player's talent level or their impact on the floor for the long-term". NBC Sports rushed the story without the correct numbers. Above I mentioned Basketnews.com.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I realize I am talking about 2 different performances as "the story". Both events had additional press is the point.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S. the reason that other forms of plus-minus are viewed as better is that they isolate the player from other players that he often plays with. Draymond Green set the single-season all-time record in a season where Steph Curry and Klay Thompson also had among the all time best season totals. Plus-minus evaluates scoring differential at times when you are playing, but does not account for the fact that often times the certain players often play with other players. E.g., starters often play together so their own plus-minus might actually reflect the abilities of other starters as much as their own. However, no one really makes this point about other statistics. No one says a guy who gets a lot of assists did so because he had a lot of great shooters and we should adjust his stats or a great shooter got a lot of points because he had a great point guard (e.g. John Stockton and Karl Malone). Food for thought.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand the statistics. However, is it WP:DUE to report? The sources are not significant. NBC Sports presented it as a roto note while basketnews is a little known site out of Lithuania. Clutchpoint is a clickbait sports site. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Doesn't each of those count as an WP:RS.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes for NBC Sports, but you also have to consider the WP:WEIGHT of what is presented. Clutchpoints is not RS while basketnews's reliablity is unknown but its significance is little. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What about the original sources Yardbarker and Defector Media?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I already mentioned they were sports blogs. Also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A related guideline is MOS:BLPLEAD: Generally single-game stats don't define a player, short of record that you'd reasonably expect to see in one's obituary, like Wilt Chamberlain's 100-point game. Moreover, +/- is a recent advanced statistic for the NBA. And this hasn't even touched on that this is a negative portrayal of Henderson. —Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What about its removal entirely from the article?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:18, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * While it was on NBCSports, it was from their fantasy pages. Im ok if its not mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Let me clarify here. Above we are discussing two events.
 * Henderson posted a -56 on January 11 (a 3-way tie for 2nd worst all-time at the time):
 * 1) https://defector.com/the-nba-is-the-best-at-showing-us-the-worst
 * 2) https://clutchpoints.com/blazers-news-the-mind-blowing-scoot-henderson-stat-from-62-point-loss-to-thunder
 * 3) https://basketnews.com/news-200121-scoot-henderson-ties-for-second-worst-plusminus-all-time-vs-thunder.html
 * Henderson posted a -58 on March 29 (a new all-time record):
 * 1) https://www.yardbarker.com/nba/articles/blazers_rookie_sets_hideous_record_in_blowout_loss/s1_13132_40174214
 * 2) https://www.nbcsports.com/fantasy/basketball/player-news?playerNewsId=0000018e-8d96-d14e-a9be-cf966edc0000 (wrong number -55 in article)


 * I am hearing that current sourcing may not support inclusion. I am digging further into this issue. Here is what I have found. Personally, I consider SB Nation to be a very good source. I use it a lot often on a standalone basis as being sufficient without any other support. They cover the March game twice at least in the following stories (also mentions the January game but incorrectly points to -57) and  (also discusses a derivative stat called cumulative plus/minus). I don't use Sportsnet a lot but they also mention the March fiasco . I have never heard of Givemesport.com which notes that he is the only player with two game of -55 or worse in this, but they may very well be a WP:RS. Yahoo! Sports mentions the March game at . I think Sportando.basketball is regarded as a RS and they mention the March event at
 * I don't usually include foreign language sources, but Henderson's P/M is an international story. The January event was covered in German. The March event was covered in Italian.
 * There were also a bunch of social media mentions and memes of the stories Jan at and March at,  and.
 * I think if I kept digging I could find more sources as well-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:SOURCES and WP:RSOPINION and explain why you believe those SB Nation articles are appropriate to establish facts and WEIGHT when they are littered with opinions and words like "ignominious", "underwhelmed", and "stupendous". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Although SB Nation is a publisher of articles that might be classified as blogs, it has been a great basketball and football source for reliable facts for years for me. I have never really given much thought to the official policy guidelines. Their articles often have lots of facts that end up checking out. As a publisher, I find them to be among those "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Their articles seem to be prominent in search results, which likely speaks toward their reliability. A WP world in which they are not a valid WP:RS would surely be a world in which the quality of my articles is reduced because they often have the best coverage of certain types of fact. The consideration at issue here is an example of them having the best coverage of a fact.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Their articles seem to be prominent in search results, which likely speaks toward their reliability. Tony, come on. 's articles are prominent in search results, and they certainly aren't reliable sources. "Prominent in search results" is a very bad proxy for reliability, and you have been on Wikipedia for long enough that you should be well aware of that fact. It increasingly sounds as though you have decided what you want the lead of Scoot Henderson to say and are just looking for sources which justifies you in doing the thing you have already decided you want, which is precisely the opposite of how we should be writing articles on Wikipedia, especially ones about living people. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Typically, when we have a questionable topic the instruction is to identify credible sources. I've been rying to say what sources say not what I want. User:Caeciliusinhorto, you seem to be making your determination of whether it is a reliable source based on whether I can describe it as one. I rely heavily on WP:RSN. Whether a source is an RS is not in my expertise. SB Nation seems to have the traditional editorial process for each franchise. What I mean by prominent in search results is that many people seem to regard them as credible. The fact that I don't know whether something is an RS is not a statement that it is not. Clearly, ranking in search results is not how we determine reliability/verifiability. We evaluate the editorial rigor and the credibility of the source. The point is not whether I can explain why I view SB Nation as an RS. The issue is whether they are one. You should stop trying to point out whether I have explained it and look to whether they are an RS, which has never been a problem in past use. Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_410 and Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_285 seem to be indeterminate on the issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You guys keep picking off sources as if they are in isolation. Here is what we have:
 * January 11 -56: Defector Media, ClutchPoints , Basketnews.com , Yardbarker , Sportsnet , SB Nation (, mentions -57), Sportando.basketball , Givemesport.com , German language spox.com/de , Italian language basketuniverso.it
 * March 29 -58: Yardbarker, NBC Sports (, mentions -55), Sportsnet , SB Nation , SB Nation , Yahoo! Sports , Sportando.basketball , Givemesport.com , Italian language basketuniverso.it -TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:58, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * User:Morbidthoughts You never opined about this subject's coverage in Sportsnet, Yahoo! Sports , Sportando.basketball and Givemesport.com (this).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sportsnet is a WP:RSOPINION editorial article. Yahoo Sports is dependent on who they syndicate from. In that case it shows Rookie Wire which is part of USA Today so that should be okay. Givemesports is a sports tabloid. Don't know anything about Sportsnando, and that is a problem for WP:WEIGHT. It's not clear if they take user submissions for articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:40, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I do often rely on USA Today.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Do the two international sources merit discussion?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow much sports, and definitely not basketball, so I haven't really followed this discussion very much, but since it's still going on I decided to take a deeper look. I had to go do some serious research to find out what the hell plus/minus means, because it sounds so self-contradicting. In math, plus and minus are opposites and therefore cancel each other out, so it comes off to an outsider like me as gibberish. The article should not be written for just sports fans, so if included then we should explain what it means for the average reader.

But is it important? Simply relying on the number of sources for due weight can often come off as clumsy and lead to poor understanding for the reader. Quite often, a little editorial judgment needs to come into play when writing an article. Certain information is essential for the reader to understand a subject and other information is often mere trivia, and there's an entire spectrum in between. Due weight is more helpful for weeding out the good trivia from the bad, but the essentials are essential no matter what. For example, in an article about energy it's essential to explain force and work, because one cannot exist without the other two, but it's a far more trivial detail to include that energy is used to ride a bicycle. Summarizing something --by definition-- means cutting out trivial details and boiling it down to the essentials.

So, in researching just how important a plus/minus stat is, I found this source from ESPN which seems to explain it rather well. "Plus/minus looks at a team's point differential when a player is on the floor compared with when he's not. In theory, this is a clever way to measure not just a player's scoring but something media types love: the so-called intangibles.... So what's the issue? Well, a player's plus/minus score bounces around a lot from night to night, so you can't use it to evaluate a guy after just a few appearances. "You look at a partial season of plus/minus and you can't tell if a guy is Patrick Ewing or Keith Bogans," says one NBA GM. The stat is hugely influenced by other players on the court too. Chris Bosh plays with two future Hall of Famers, so his plus/minus looks great. John Wall's Wizards routinely get crushed, so his looks awful."

From that source, it seems the stat is rather meaningless when talking about an individual player over a single game, because it relies just as much on the team's performance as it does the player's. Where it becomes valuable is when players are evaluated against each other over an entire season; to determine which players work best when paired with other players. On its own, however, it's something the media types love because it gives something to cheer or boo about but in reality doesn't tell much about an individual player, especially over a single game, so it can also be rather misleading to those who don't know better.

Should it be in the article? Probably, but does that mean it should be in the lede? The lede should be a summary of the body, just touching on all the most important aspects of the subject. It's a summary of a summary. So, before even considering whether it should be in the lede, I would want to see it in the body first. From there it's fairly easy to determine, just by how prominently it stands out in the body, if it is important enough to summarize in the lede. Anyhow, that's the way I'd approach it, so I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am no longer trying to determine its suitability for the WP:LEAD. However, I am trying to confirm that it is appropriate to restore the content to the main body. If so, I am trying to understand what sources are most well regarded.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:29, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting that at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard the Dave Deckard blog was deemed to be reliable enough while the other SB Nation blog was not.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Dave Deckard blog was deemed to be reliable enough: Nobody has said that. —Bagumba (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, if the blogs have minimal editorial oversight, at best it is WP:RSOPINION and at worst disqualified WP:BLPSPS (requires full editorial control). In reviewing his articles, it's clear he's offering his opinions on all sorts of basketball matters. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That's a spurious claim. If anything, SB Nation has been deemed SPS and should not be used anywhere unless the author is an established expert, and even then should only be cited on non-BLP pages. JoelleJay (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Also at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, I was encouraged to avoid ClutchPoints.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Michael Meldman
Hi - I'm looking for help updating the Michael Meldman article. Mr. Meldman is now the Founder and Chairman (not CEO) as Brett White was appointed CEO in early 2022. Also the article repeatedly refers to "Casamigos tequila" but the company name is "Casamigos Tequila" (upper case "T"). Finally, based on the IRS 990 forms the Discovery Land Foundation has contributed over $30 Million since 2007, which may be material to that section of the article.

Disclosure - I am a paid contractor for the Discovery Land Company, and would greatly appreciate any help in getting the article updated. If there is another forum or format that would work better, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19thholeEditor (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Greetings. 1) businesswire is not a reliable third-party source as to BLP information, however I'm willing to remove "CEO" as unreffed. 2) The capital T refers to a byname but not a registered name apparently. The company article includes the T in its lede. But do you have a good source other than yourself for that? 3) Nobody cares about contributions that aren't noteworthy as shown by reliable third-party sources. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For more on caps and names, see WP:MOS. Or tell your client to register a T name and see what someone else here thinks of it. JFHJr (㊟) 01:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Elizabeth Salmón
I have raised an RFC regarding a BLP issue on Elizabeth Salmón. More information can be found on the talk page, but the executive summary is that it appears the subject would like her birth year removed from the article, citing privacy as a concern. This information is sourced at the UN. I do not think this is a BLP issue, but I am not an expert. Your comments would be welcome. Eniagrom (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Please let everyone here know if either the IP or the SPA announce they're (editing for or on behalf of) the subject. That changes a gear. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I did comment on sourcing at the talk page; it's a primary source containing a SPS. If that source is removed, there's not much to hang an encyclopedic biography on. What are your impressions as to this article's sourcing? JFHJr (㊟) 04:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi sorry for the delay in replying here, I didn't see this comment until recently. Thanks for looking into it. Right now the sourcing is pretty weak, but I think that's mostly because it's a stub. I see that another admin mentioned it probably failed WP:GNG in its current form and that you nominated it for deletion on the same grounds -- let's see how the AfD process plays out. My general feeling on these UN articles (I've created a few of them) is that they usually start out pretty bare-bones precisely because most of the notability comes from the position, and they have to have it a while before the WP:RS catches up. But generally they do. An example might be David Kaye (academic) which I created when he was nominated for the position was a really bare-bones article, but it's now quite fleshed out. Of course, it's been 10 years. But, no deadline, etc. Eniagrom (talk) 09:51, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I've nominated this article for deletion. See: WP:Articles for deletion/Elizabeth Salmón JFHJr (㊟) 22:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Gregorian Bivolaru
I just had a look at Gregorian Bivolaru and it appears to be a painful combination of bad writing, WP:BLPCRIME possible violations and WP:BATTLEGROUND - extra eyes very much needed. Simonm223 (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have only mentioned the name of another person, Bivolaru's French right-hand man. Anyone is free to delete his name from the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article needs a lot of work, especially after the recent somewhat conspiratorial issues. I did a little bit of trimming a few days ago, but it seems to me that part of the problem is that there is just too much information on the page - just look at the two paragraphs about his arrest and institutionalization in 1989. If we strip out some of the excessive detail, that may resolve some of the BLPCRIME problems. EasyAsPai (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Legal Problems" section is somewhat alarming from a WP:BLPCRIME perspective. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Two women were mentioned by name as his victims. But it wasn't me who added their names to the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the controversies section is just like, here's all the lurid allegations that didn't make it into his actual legal trouble. A lot of them are really controversies about the overall MISA organization's beliefs, which makes me wonder if we should have a separate page for MISA - I know he's the main leader and all, but it feels like this is two articles in one. EasyAsPai (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have attempted some clean-up by removing line items that were not supported by sources or by bad sources like WP:BLPPRIMARY or advocacy groups like Human Rights Without Frontiers International and Amnesty Inc. Another thing that hampers the article is that it thinks every sentence deserves its own paragraph and sometimes the seemingly unsourced assertion is supported by a later citation. The legal problems section reads like a WP:NOTNEWS blotter. Perhaps a complete rewrite based on the plentiful recent English reliable sources available that summarises his legal history is necessary. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, there are not many high-quality sources about him in English. That's mostly because the events mainly concern Romania, Sweden, Finland and France. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Christie Sides
The Indiana Fever section of the entry for their coach Christie Sides includes some obviously derogatory comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8f80:bce0:f162:5101:24bf:e51f (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Looks like it was already removed. Thanks for your report. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Eden Golan
Eden Golan became huge news while the Eurovision was happening, but now the party has moved on, leaving her article behind in its wake. Given what's happening in the world, that she's an Israeli with a Russian connection was too juicy to ignore and suddenly the Israeli was a Russian Israeli even though she identifies as 100% Israeli and 0% Russian. There are over 15 threads on her talk page devoted to this. Maybe coming here and then to the Admin board will make things worse, but I have faith in the processes. This needs cool heads to take a look at. Thanks. MaskedSinger (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This crops up all the time with Palestinian Americans and Israeli Americans, I always thought that it meant dual citizenship, if that's right, then that should be straightforward to source? Or maybe not. Selfstudier (talk) 08:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is some disagreement on whether she has dual citizenship. There is currently a Hebrew source in the article which says she doesn't have Russian citizenship, however I cannot find that information in the source. (I have asked the editor who made the claim and sourced it for clarification. Meanwhile Makeandtoss has argued that RSs calling her "Russian-Israeli" is evidence that she does hold dual citizenship. (Which is in line with one other case I have seen.)
 * EDIT: I have confirmed that Eden Golan herself claims she has no Russian citizenship in this source.
 * Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 15:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * She was born an Israeli in Israel. I'm not sure what weight parentage and passport status hold in this article's body, but only Israeli seems to belong in the lede. JFHJr (㊟) 02:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I thought it was not legally possible for people to have dual Russian and Israeli citizenship. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * From what I can see you can have dual citizenship if both your parents have Russian citizenship (if you are born outside Russia) (Relevant page) and you have another citizenship. Russia does not recognize the other citizenship if you have dual citizenship (with exceptions for some former soviet states), but you will still have it. So it comes down to the citizenship status of her parents at the time of her birth.
 * Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 07:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The recently amended law apparently says "descendants of individuals permanently residing in the USSR or Russian Empire". Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks, I had missed the amendment.
 * Speederzzz (Talk) (Stalk me) 08:18, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How does any of this square with MOS:IDENTITY? JFHJr (㊟) 00:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Suicide of Sammy Teusch
I feel like this needs more eyes. Are we sure we should even have this article? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You hereby owe me eight fluid ounces of un-see juice. There's a related meme on the interwebs that makes me feel like a parakeet at the moment. I hope AfD goes speedily. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC on BLPs at DYK
There is an RfC about Can DYK feature negative hooks on BLPs and remain in compliance with WP:BLP policy? that may be of interest. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced defamatory claim about Bret Weinstein
Please see Talk:Bret_Weinstein.

Is my assessment that the defamatory statement qualifies for immediate mandatory deletion correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealLRLee (talk • contribs) 22:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I assume you are referring to the statement in the lede? This is covered in further detail in the article body, citing multiple sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Then, given WP:V, doesn't the "Weinstein has been criticized for making false statements about COVID-19 treatments and vaccines, and for spreading about HIV/AIDS" claim require footnoting the claim where the claim is first made?
 * Further, what is the appropriate BLP NPOV criteria for including "criticized" in the lede for a BLP article? RealLRLee (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The lede is a summary of the article body. It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede. As for NPOV, it is a simple, demonstrable fact that Weinstein has been criticised, and that per multiple reliable sources, the statements he made are false. As for NPOV policy, I suggest you read what it actually says, in particular in regard to WP:WEIGHT. Weinstein's views are far removed from scientific consensus, and we do not present fringe medical claims as having any credibility, per policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Guidance at WP:LEADREF. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please see the discussion at Talk:Bret Weinstein. Should this discussion be occurring here, at BLP/N?  Or at the article's noticeboard?  Clearly this discussion needs to occur in one location.
 * The assertion by User:AndyTheGrump that "It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede" is directly contradicted by MOS:CITELEAD as explained at the talk page link above. How should this direct contradiction of the MOS:CITELEAD be resolved? RealLRLee (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * No it's not. CITELEAD says exactly what Andy said. In most cases it's not necessary to provide a ref for the lede simply because it's already cited in the article. It's often best not to use refs any more than necessary to prevent WP:OVERKILL which disrupts readability. CITELEAD says we can use refs in the lede if someone thinks it will prevent unnecessary confusion, in which case all you need to do is take one from below and cite it up top.


 * On the other point, you brought the discussion here, and here is where it'll get more eyes and responses (like mine). Zaereth (talk) 21:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Per User:Zaereth's comment, I will copy the discussion from Talk:Bret Weinstein to this thread, just below ...
 * Copyied text starts ...
 * As "Controversial articles tend to have refs in the lead more often" and the article in question is clearly controversial and, per MOS:CITELEAD, "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads" then the citations in the lead are clearly needed.
 * I have difficulty reconciling User:AndyTheGrump's "The lede is a summary of the article body. It is normal practice to provide citations in the body, not the lede" and User:Zaereth's "CITELEAD says exactly what Andy said" with the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD. RealLRLee (talk) 22:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You reconcile everything by taking a bird's eye view of the article and ask yourself: is this lede wikivoice statement of controversy adequately referenced in the body? If not, add a ref citation to the lede. Even though articles containing controversy might have them more often, a threshold determination of adequacy-below should be made. Here, consensus so far does not support your proposal for a citation in the lede for that reason. I also disfavor lede refs except in articles which lack substantial ref-cited content below. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:08, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. It's not like it's ambiguous or anything. I mean the information on this takes up nearly 1/4 of the body, so I don't see why it would be necessary to cite it in the lede, being as that it's plainly obvious. Still, I personally wouldn't quibble over it much if it ends this dispute either. Zaereth (talk) 23:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Zaereth! I would add that your rationale just above is also exactly why OP shouldn't push on this. And ao far, it looks to me like four uninvolved BLPN editors with their own differently-worded rationales have rejected OP's comment/complaint/request. Nobody but OP had chimed in to pick up and carry this torch. JFHJr (㊟) 00:10, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yup, nothing to do here (though there would be no harm in duplicating the ample citations for this in the lede, other than creating a mess of blue). Contrary to what the OP asserts there is nothing 'defamatory' or even controversial about this: there is solid and copious sourcing saying that this guy does indeed spout crap about COVID and HIV/AIDS, as the article details. Wikipedia reflects that, to be neutral. There is zero RS saying otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 02:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Make that 1:5. For an obscure subject, this represents an overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 02:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I note that much of the commentary, above, ignores the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD -- "there is no exception to citation requirements specific to leads". Would the parties refusing to add the needed "citation needed" (or actual citations) please explain their reasoning for ignoring the plain text of MOS:CITELEAD?
 * I note that much of the comment, above, ignores the plain text of MOS:LEAD -- "The lead must conform to verifiability, biographies of living persons, and other policies. The verifiability policy states that all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it."
 * Again, MOS:LEAD requires "... must include an inline citation to a reliable source ...".  MOS:LEAD does NOT read  "... must include a citation somewhere else in the article to a reliable source ...".
 * If someone would be so kind as to add the missing "citation needed" then further wasted time on this matter can be avoided. RealLRLee (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Bon courage: Your assertion that "there is nothing 'defamatory' ... about this" suggests that you are unfamiliar with the definition of "defamatory".  Might you be confusing the meaning of "defamatory" with the phrase "false and defamatory"? RealLRLee (talk) 20:03, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Uebert Angel
Please take a look at this edit request, I have requested some edits to the article because it seems like there are no reliable sources that support the claims, on the contrary it's supported by an unreliable source, and the Gistmania one which appears as a spam source per this spam report. Editor ZionniThePeruser accepted the edit request but LocomotiveEngine reverted the edits more than one time without any valid reason. It seems like LocomotiveEngine did the same before with spam links, please take a look at his edit here and unexplained content removal like this edit.

So, can you please handle the edit request, stop the edit warring between ZionniThePeruser and LocomotiveEngine, and notify LocomotiveEngine not to revert it again if I'm not mistaken? -- Exposstage (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I have removed the gistmania citation, but not the content because it is still apparently supported by another citation. The next easiest answer: a reasonable editor could be satisfied that template removal was appropriate because the issues had apparently been addressed. Removing a ref to aircargonews implies the editor did not see it as a fit WP:RS for a BLP. But no edit summary means you can only ask the editor for clarification. Otherwise, LocomotiveEngine appears to be addressing WP:POV issues which appear in versions preferred by ZionniThePeruser. If more reliable source discussion might be the key here, a better forum might be WP:RSN. There may be folks there inclined to scrub the article to remove non-RS. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 01:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I reviewed and removed the remaining source as well, because it simply repeated the allegation without attribution (and without citation to the actual alleged list), and it was supposed to support wikivoice stating it as fact. Both editors are POVing. JFHJr (㊟) 02:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pinging me, but I already reverted the edit before I read the message. But your edit summary is quite misleading as you stated that "rm supporting cite to gistmania: not WP:RS for a BLP". You stated that you were removing only the unreliable source without touching the controversial line but you removed the same controversial line along with the source. I invite other "reasonable" editors since I am unreasonable according to your words. The article has been under sustained attack to remove anything they perceive as negative in the page LocomotiveEngine (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I made two edits (with two different summaries) and left two different comments here. (See one, then two an hour later) Nothing I said was misleading. Nor did I leave you a contrary message on your talkpage, as your edit summary appears to falsely state. At no point did I imply you were not reasonable; I think you've misread several things. But I do agree input from more editors would be helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * For everyone's reference, the two citations I removed were to Gistmania and Zimbo, which were being used to state the unattributed reports as facts in wikivoice. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 18:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you JFHJr for your comment and for your good efforts here!
 * There's another piece in the article that is related to the Fake Degrees part, i have included it on my edit request in the talk page earlier but likely got forgotten due to the multiple editing versions on the article, In 2013 his name was included on a list of people who bought fake degrees from an online degree mill. It's unsourced as well and included in the very end of the lead section. Could you please remove it as well? Best. Exposstage (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. JFHJr (㊟) 21:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Do you think the ZimEye.net will be considered a reliable source? ZimEye doesn't have its own Wikipedia page but noticed that it was used in several articles. I don't want to bother you and ask your help to edit the article again, and intend to submit an edit request on the TP but wanted to know your thoughts. Sincerely -- Exposstage (talk) 22:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN might be a better place to ask reliable source questions. It's easier to apply BLP policies once a threshold determination can be made as to particular sources. To me, ZimEye looks like a political tabloid whose publications are probably unreliable as to BLP content. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 23:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * According to their 'about' page, "ZimEye is a spread out news network" and "the various journalists are the individual publishers". This makes me question their level of editorial control, and suspect that they are not appropriate for BLP content at least. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've removed zimeye. I still hope OP reaches out to RSN. There's a lot of similar in this article to wade through. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:18, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My BLP edits to the article are being characterized by LocomotiveEngine as vandalism in edit summaries. Any additional eyes and hands would be helpful. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @LocomotiveEngine: could you please explain here about why you think the sources you restored are WP:BLP and WP:RS compliant, and perhaps how my BLP edits constitute vandalism, as you claimed in your edit summary? Neither I nor Caeciliusinhorto find zimeye to be reliable enough for WP:BLP claims. Especially critical or controversial ones. Implied, Exposstage probably doesn't find them reliable either (hence all the BLPNing). This is a WP:CONSENSUS based process, so I'd like to get the rationale behind your edits and your edit summaries. Thanks! JFHJr (㊟) 00:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Peter Cain (politician)
Could someone take a look at Peter Cain (politician)? In the last few months, there has been substantial edit warring among mostly new editors and sockpuppets (see Sockpuppet investigations/Samreeveparl) regarding a "Controversy" section, which was added by the relatively new editor. Giving the article a cursory read, this does smell like it could be an WP:NPOV WP:BLP violation, placing undue weight on the controversies, but I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject area to have an informed opinion here. I am particularly curious if the sources cited in the Controversy section meet Wikipedia's WP:RS guideline. The Canberra Times seems to meet the bar, but unsure about the-riotact.com. Mz7 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A politician accused another politician of not being a school principal and then walked back on it by conceding he was a principal of a de-registered school? Is the news that slow in Canberra? There should be multiple reliable sources about this if this is to be included. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Heh. This is where I am at as well. I am not against removing the controversy section in the absence of more substantial coverage, particularly from national-level news sources. Mz7 (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I have indeffed LocalCbrHero1988 per User talk:LocalCbrHero1988. Johnuniq (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good block especially given the absolute nonsense they posted in the past. On the general issue, as I mentioned last time, it's likely no coincidence that the 2024 Australian Capital Territory general election is coming in the next few months. Probably a matter of throwing whatever sticks as much as anything. It does seem that particular editor has focused on a limited number of politicians which also help explain why they're adding such weird stuff. Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Graham Lineham
It has a heading "anti transgender activism" Graham is a supporter of women's rights and children's safety from a medical pathway of drugs and surgery. The CASS report shares those same concerns. As do 1000s of women who are fighting for their single sex spaces & sports. This is not anti trans. It also says he doxxed Mridul Wadhwa a transwoman who is the ceo of rape crisis edinburgh. This is lies. Be careful these are libellous allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silkworm2024 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I will spell out at User talk:Silkworm2024 the procedures regarding WP:NLT. Johnuniq (talk) 08:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This concerns where "anti-transgender activist" is in the lead with a lot more in the article. I'm just reporting the situation and have no idea about the merits. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Silkworm2024, have you read the FAQ on the article talkpage? While it deals with the description rather than the heading it deals with basically the same issue. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Jordan Peterson: discussion of sourcing and tone of a disputed paragraph
More input is requested on the BLP-related discussion I started on the article Talk page.

As a related matter, I have also been asked on my Talk page whether this removal under BLPRESTORE/3RRNO #7 was in process or not. I removed the material after multiple editors had objected on BLP grounds, for apparent NPOV violation and poor sourcing, pending affirmative consensus on Talk.

I'm uncertain whether this is the correct venue for the latter discussion, but additional input on this is also welcome. Newimpartial (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Based on comments on Talk, the question at issue about BLPRESTORE and 3RRNO seems to be whether 3RRNO #7 is limited to potentially harmful BLP material, or whether biased or poorly sourced material in general may be removed on these grounds. The relevant language of WP:3RRNO and WP:BLPRESTORE does not seem to be limited to harmful material, but there may be some context here that my neurodivergence has missed.
 * If the intention of these passages is that 3RRNO #7 only covers potentially harmful BLP material, then I think a centralized discussion is required to alter the policy language. Newimpartial (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * This seems to be one of those things where a little common sense would need to come into play. There's an inherent danger in making a policy too specific because where such limitations can be helpful in one circumstance they can be a hinderance in another, and policy needs some room for flexibility to account for different situations. In general, not everything in a bio falls under BLP policy exclusively. Many things fall under NPOV, RS, OR, V, etc... The purpose of BLP policy is primarily to protect our subjects and their rights, so I'm not really seeing any kind of BLP policy issue at play here, and if this is something more related to NPOV or RS then it doesn't seem like 3RRNO or BLPRESTORE can readily be invoked in the name of BLP policy.


 * That said, the disputed paragraph is a nightmare to read due to WP:OVERKILL and reeks of synth and OR. It always raises a big red-flag when so many refs are used for a single sentence, especially when they're interstitially dispersed throughout the sentence like that. I mean, if you need to cite every single word, it starts to come off like a Jack van Impe sermon, but instead of using the Bible to predict the end of the world we're citing every primary source with his name on it as proof of his fields of expertise. In other words, as written it gives some huge cringe vibes. But is it a BLP policy issue? It doesn't appear so. Zaereth (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You'd have thought this bio subject would have enough coverage in secondary sources not to need to synth stuff up from primaries; smells a bit POV-pushy. Bon courage (talk) 05:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No comment on the details, but I would be wary of relying on BLPRESTORE unless you're absolutely certain it needs immediate removal from the article. If there is consensus that it isn't a BLP issue then you are just editor waring. -- LCU A ctively D isinterested  «@» °∆t° 20:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Irene Tracey
On 24 May, a new account User:Oxfordscholar334442 has added nearly ten thousand bytes of content to this biography – around a third of its present content – about an event that happened on 23 May. It's sourced, but some of the citations are to student newspapers, campaigning websites, and Twitter. It looks like a case of undue weight and, to some extent, original research. I'm not presently an employee of the University of Oxford but I have been, and occasionally do work for it. The edit could do with being reviewed by someone unconnected to the institution and these events. Grateful for any fresh eyes, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Simplest option is to revert the edit, as Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict only allows edits by extended-confirmed editors. Kathleen&#39;s bike (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitly came across as undue. there may be cause for some mention of the issue, but not to that extent, and not so badly sourced. I've removed it for now. - Bilby (talk) 08:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, many thanks for your feedback, I will provide an updated version with a more appropriate weight, as hearing your critque it does appear to be given undue weight as viewed in context of the whole article. A good point of comparison on the point of appropriate weight and neutrality is the Minouche Shafik article, which includes under "career" a section titled "Pro-Palestinian protests and controversy" which occupies approximately 20% of the page (460/2253 words). On the other hand the controversy with Shafik was larger than with Tracey, but also Tracey's other career sections are less lengthy given her dedication to a career path in academia. Removing one of the most covered incidents of Tracey's career would violate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.
 * With regards to sourcing, you have concerns with some citations linking to student newspaper, campaigning websites, and twitter. Firstly, the student newspapers' reports were assessed as being reliable on this issue, given corroborating mainstream sources referenced, and were engaged in on-the-ground factual reporting. Notwithstanding, I will do a better job by providing multiple references to different sources to assuage these concerns. Secondly, the use of campaigning website of Oxford Act for Palestine and twitter was solely used to quote the official responses of Oxford Act for Palestine, which was on their website, and the University and Colleges Union, which was on their verified twitter account. Equally, the University of Oxford's statement, signed by tracey, was also directly referenced. My attempt was to ensure objectivity and draw no conclusions, simply providing the reader with the different positions of the key parties involved in the controversy. Notwithstanding, the block quote for Oxford Act's response was undue, but that was because their response to the allegation of assault was itself longer than the allegation itself, by word count. Many thanks for the comments and I hope we can address them as a community without removing an objective account crucial controversy regarding this public figure.
 * However, I do disagree with the allegation that this qualifies as original research, as every point was sourced and vetted by reliable sources - there was nothing different or new to the edit which was not already published by news media (secondary sources) and the parties themselves (primary sources). The parties accounts were qualified and in quotations, in line with wikipedia guidelines. There was no analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.
 * Furthermore, the guidleine of Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict which only allows edits by extended-confirmed editors for related content to the arab israeli conflict does not extend to this issue. The controversy regards handling of protests as a question of proportionality and freedom of expression rather than motivation and connections to the Israel-Palestine conflict. So long as the focus is on the incident and handeling of protests it should remain open to all to discuss. Happy to hear different viewpoints on this.
 * As for conflicts, I am not a member of OA4P, or the University College Union, or any of the cited organizations. I am a scholar within the Oxford University community, but am only interested in seeing a neutral and objective account of Irene Tracey, which must necessarily include the incidents of March 23. Moreover, please note that Mr Martin Poulter does bear a considerable conflict of interest as he worked particularly in the capacity of "Wikimedian in Reseidence" at the University of Oxford. Ultimately, we must work together to arrive at a neutral and objective account of Tracey.
 * To conclude the March 23 incident should be included as "a controversy" which Tracey was involved, given the sea of differing opinions. We must abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view when covering this issue, not drawing conclusions, citing the positions of the parties, the reported facts, and leaving the reader to their own devices.
 * I will provide an update soon for you all to review. Oxfordscholar334442 (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No, edits about opinions about the conflict, including protests and how they are handled, all fall under the Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict restriction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Please be careful with insinuations. Unlike you, I haven't edited the article or its Talk page, so bringing up a supposed conflict of interest (other than repeating what I've already declared) is pointless. And for that matter, I'm not "Mr". MartinPoulter (talk) 21:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Just to emphasise, if this is really so important to add, someone who is extended confirmed can do it. Not you. Oxford is an extremely well known university, so it implausible that something really so important will not get the attention of extended confirmed editors so there is absolution no reason why ARBECR needs to be violated. Nil Einne (talk) 03:29, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Also while this doesn't matter in the particular case since you should not be touching this, I'll mention it in case you are involved in future BLPs which could even include this one in areas which don't relate to her handling of the protestors etc. WP:BLPSPS clearly disallows self-published sources for material about living persons unless the material is published by the living person themselves and does not involve third parties. Clearly tweets or other official statements by other organisations are not published by Tracey so cannot be used in an article about her. The university's statement is a bit more iffy, however generally speaking in such cases, there is zero reason for us to rely on the official statement directly for anything. If it's not covered in reliable secondary sources, then it's undoubtedly WP:undue to include. Anything which is covered in reliable secondary sources should be using those as the main sources with the official statement at most added as an additional source rather than intended to support anything said in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As of note, another non-ECP made edits to the article that I reverted. More concerning is that they created 2024 Oxford Action for Palestine Encampment, which has now been edited by ECP accounts that disputed some assertions in the original draft. Not sure if an AfD is appropriate here so I PRODed it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)