Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive361

Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia


Feel free to join the discussion at Talk:Medical professional misconduct scandals in Nova Scotia, concerning the inclusion or exclusion of serious claims about individuals in a more general article. It concerns this section (which may warrant revdel) and the "June 2024" section here. Fram (talk) 07:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think that entire article's salvageable as it stands. It looks like a string of unrelated marginally notable incidents presented as a tacit invitation to "join the dots", conspiracy-theory style. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You're right. Why is this article here? To answer OP: private (no public life) living persons don't need WP:BLPCRIME even if the article is ostensibly about a phenomenon and not a person, by its title. Any content in any article or talk or wiki forum about living persons is a BLP concern. But back to the point Daveosaurus and now I would like to raise: how is this article encyclopedic, and what unrelated source covers this as a discrete phenomenon? It's not normal here to see, basically, "MedMal in X second-level (including federative) nation members" as a title. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * To the question about how the article is encyclopedic: The existence of Category:Medical scandals and Category:Scandals in Canada and Category:21st-century scandals shows that scandals are, in general, encyclopedic. There are a few longer-titled scandals on there, such as Controversies surrounding the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Royal Newfoundland Constabulary sexual abuse scandal and Canadian Indian residential school gravesites that have a place within an encyclopedia. Within Canada, it is quite unusual for one health region/university combined to have so many scandals related to a toxic culture of bullying, discrimination, entitlement toward colleagues' bodies, entitlement toward accessing anyone's records like a friend's, etc., such that there are a couple dozen articles on these topics. And all are related because any physician trainee studying at Dalhousie University is by default an employee of Nova Scotia Health Authority, and all of the Nova Scotia Health Authority physicians involved in scandals were also working on research or training with Dalhousie University at the time. Some of these scandals involved big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures. That's significant, at least as relevant to Category:Scandals in Canada even if repeated big lawsuits in the 6-7 figures are not a big deal elsewhere. The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result. Scandals are valid within an encyclopedia, especially when the integrated summary of all of it demonstrates overall systemic problems. Ask anyone in Nova Scotia trying to access healthcare or trying to work in healthcare and they will tell you that there are very visible systemic problems, and a combination of over a couple dozen news articles about these things happening within the past decade is evidence of this.
 * Now, that is beside the point here. Is it right to tear down the entire article because of a dispute over whether or not one section makes sense? That doesn't seem fair, seems almost retaliatory to do that to a new editor who is debating the inclusion of one portion into the article. I don't care that much about the Dr. Steele scandal that I put in there, so please don't try to destroy all of the hard work I put into this by making a mountain out of a molehill and punishing me for trying to understand. If the consensus is that the Dr. Steele scandal stays out, then I accept that and ask that we leave it out without destroying the whole article as punishment for my even daring to question this, even though I currently do not understand why the Dr. Steele scandal is not worth including.
 * My questions about the Dr. Steele scandal are:
 * 1. This guy died in January, how far back does BLP cover? What is considered "recently deceased" and at what point does that not count as recent any more? Does 6 months count as not recent any more, such that the information is worth putting back in there next month, or is it 1 year or longer?
 * 2. If BLP does apply, does Dr. Steele count as an "involuntary public figure" given the discussion around his behaviours with a minor when you look him up, and therefore WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies?
 * 3. Is it fair to say that he has only been "accused" of having committed a crime, given that the criminal charges were withdrawn, or if we remove just that section about the criminal charges, is it fair to include the rest of it where he lost his medical licence for his actions with a minor? Is losing one's medical licence after an investigation and hearing from one's licensing college not considered a "conviction" in that sense? Is Wikipedia reducing the outcomes of medical licensing boards to "accusations" and not "convictions" on the matters of losing the licence because of professional misconduct?
 * 4. Do we consider the investigations and hearings from a medical licensing board to be a "judicial proceeding"? If so, then that outcome of losing his licence because of his actions with a minor seems to be in contradiction to the outcome of having no criminal charges for those actions, which relates to the WP:BLPCRIME point of "If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[f] include sufficient explanatory information." And again, if you read the actual documents and articles, he lost his licence because the alleged actions were confirmed to have happened. The victim just refused to testify and that's why it was not pursued criminally - because she was visibly shaken in the courtroom and backed out. Seemed to me when writing this piece that this was worth including as the withdrawn criminal charge is a "seemingly contradictory outcome that does not overrule the other" and it was worth including the "sufficient explanatory information" that the victim was afraid to testify. It was already confirmed that the man did take the nude photos of the teen, and that is why he lost his licence. This is the tip of the iceberg of similar things that have happened in the culture of doctor entitlement in Nova Scotia. Basically the whole article is about toxic medical culture, with several examples of an overarching systemic issue of entitlement to mistreat other human beings because one is a physician/dentist.
 * MrHaligonian (talk) 02:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Does any reliable source indicate The kinds of scandals that have happened repeatedly within healthcare in Nova Scotia are usually supposed to be very rare, yet happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia and with significant taxpayer dollars wasted as a result? After that, without any WP:NOR, do two or more others also say so? This quote seems to well state the basis for notability. But the underpinnings are not clear. JFHJr (㊟) 02:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would say that the details of several of the news articles referenced within the Wikipedia article suggest that these scandals should be rare but happen at an unusually high frequency in Nova Scotia. For example, the comment from lawyers that NSHA is "negligent" in preventing repeated privacy breaches suggests this is happening too much, to the extent of it coming across negligent. The fact of NSHA spending $1 million - of taxpayer money - on lawyers to fight Dr. Horne who ultimately won her bullying case anyway and then they paid her more taxpayer money (NSHA is taxpayer funded) when she won her lawsuit; the fact that NSHA paid out a class action lawsuit about privacy breaches; the fact that multiple physicians complained about bullying and said "it was like a circus" among other things and then left the province... it's all connected to a general problematic toxic culture that is notable. Saying that all these issues are just disconnected issues and that I'm playing "conspiracy theorist" is like saying that a bunch of indigenous children's gravesites in all sorts of places all over Canada is not connected and it's a conspiracy to put it all in 1 article, and yet Canadian Indian residential school gravesites exists and I think the country would be up in arms if someone questioned the notability of that article, even though the gravesites are littered all over the place and seemingly disconnected - yet united, the existence of all these problems indicate a larger, overlying problematic culture. Not really a conspiracy theory. Just pointing to systemic issues in how human beings get treated. Systemic issues do exist in all sorts of problematic systems. MrHaligonian (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your wall of text. It would have been much easier just to reply "No, that statement requires original research and synthesis to make the article's titled notion work out." Because that's all I took away from the non-responsive reply wall. My question didn't involve any conspiracy related mentions. Just sourcing. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Even without the BLP angle and the crime but no conviction issue, the whole section would be WP:UNDUE and WP:COATRACK: an individual doctor doing something sufficient to get his license revoked is not evidence of any systematic problem at the province level and is, unless reliable sources make the connection explicitly, unconnected to the topic of the article. Whether the article as a whole may exist or not is up to others, but I see no reason to include individual cases (this one or any similar ones) if there is no clear connection, as noted by reliable sources, of the individual cases to a systemic issue. Fram (talk) 10:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * just making a quick comment since it's mostly tangential, probably why no one addressed but is important if you're going to continue to edit articles dealing with the recently decease. Per WP:BDP and the recent discussions clarifying, 6 months is generally accepted as the absolute minimum for "recently deceased". Absolute minimum here means if someone died in January then yes they're covered as it's still June so even if they died on 1 January it cannot have been 6 months. This doesn't mean the moment 6 months past we should suddenly ignore BLP. If there are some restrictions specific to BLP like BLPPRIMARY, it's worth considering how to deal with them long term but in any case, as others have noted BLP is only one of the issues anyway even if the one we deal with on this board. Nil Einne (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Nandipha Magudumana
This is one of the most searched individuals in South Africa in 2023 (and probably in 2024 also). She's most notable for her criminal activities as she's still in trial. Apparently inclusion of her criminal activities on the encyclopedia is a violation of WP:CRIMINAL but I believe that's what most (if not all) of the aforementioned page viewers are looking for here. I was hoping to get an input and include at least some of her criminal activities on that article. This is the revision of the deleted content of her criminal activities. Showmax and Multichoice aired a documentary based on their prison escape and most of their history. I believe readers are here for a summarized version of all that. —&nbsp dxneo ''' (talk) 15:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If this person has not yet been convicted of a crime, we simply cannot use the phrase "criminal activities" or any similar wording. If well referenced, the article can say she was arrested and summarize the charges. If she's on trial, that can be included if properly referenced. But until she is convicted. if that happens, the article cannot state or imply or hint that she is a criminal or that her activities were criminal. The language must be rigorously neutral. This is a matter of policy. Cullen328 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Cullen328, frankly it seems like I failed to stay neutral the last time. I will try again and have you review the short section before I put it up if that's okay with you. —  dxneo  (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , I will take a look at what you draft, but be aware that I live in California, almost half the way around the world from South Africa, so may respond slowly. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Categorization
Why is this talk page categorised in Category:Scandals in Canada? — Iadmc  ♫ talk  12:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Someone forgot to put : between "Laun chba ller 12:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * OK thanks — Iadmc  ♫ talk  12:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Use of XXL for a birthday
Hello, I originally added XXL as a source for a BLP birthday at DJ Paul, due to it being designated as a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC, but I self-reverted to bring the source here since I am unsure about whether or not this specific link should be cited as a source for the article subject's birthday. What do you all say? I think I've made it clear that I'm not sure whether or not this link should be used for a BLP despite the source appearing to meet the requirements of WP:RS, but I would like to ask for a second opinion here. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * JeffSpaceman, XXL is indeed a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC. You can try to verify this information by double checking with another green source. —  dxneo  (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DOB including the birth date of a living person requires more than just a reliable source. The specific standard is wheather the source is "widely published by reliable sources". As I don't know much about music journalism, I can't say whether XXL meets this standard.Serprinss (talk) please ping on reply. 06:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you pointing me to that section of the BLP policy, Serprinss. I will avoid restoring the information from the source for now, given that the only other sources I can find for supposed birthdates for the subject are from sources that are very clearly WP:NOTRS, and are especially inappropriate for a BLP (circular sources, websites like Famous Birthdays, etc). I think for now, there is no reason to include a birthdate here, considering that XXL is the only reliable source I can find that has published a birthdate for him. (If anyone wants to see what kind of sources come up when Googling the subject's birthday, see here). JeffSpaceman (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Article Created by Sockpuppet
If an article was created by a sockpuppet and then deleted as a result of this, what is the process for trying to recreate it?

I have no problem that it was deleted - this happened mid March.

How long is the person in question tainted for? MaskedSinger (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I think you just ask an admin to allow edits. I had this with an article which had been used originally as a personal blog for a nobody but I knew of a composer with the same name and wanted to create an article on her instead. It was allowed — Iadmc  ♫ talk  12:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Better still, create it in draftspace and submit it for review. WP:AFC - Cabayi (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Cabayi @Iadmc I'm going to do some more research before proceeding, just to be safe. If I sense anything about it is iffy, I won't proceed. MaskedSinger (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , if you want the content of the deleted article restored, that can be done by any admin. The restored content would not be placed into mainspace, of course, but you could work with it if you wanted to.  Schwede 66  21:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Appreciate it. MaskedSinger (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Simone Badal-McCreath
Dispute is about the inclusion of plagiarism allegations in this context referenced to Retraction Watch at Talk:Simone_Badal-McCreath. My take on that is that while the source may be reliable, it doesn't sufficiently demonstrate anything other than that there was a disagreement between the two authors and the publisher and does not warrant inclusion. Please comment here or on the talk page. Graywalls (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I"m going to agree that it is UNDUE along the same rationale I held the last time RW was brought up at BLPN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It's definitely undue, but more than that it's saying and implying things that the source doesn't say nor imply. We're framing it as a case of plagiarism, which is a very serious charge in the field of writing. The source frames it in no such way. The only explanation offered was by the publisher, who chalked it up to a "production error", and no alternative theory was given by the source that would even suggest plagiarism. Not even an accusation of plagiarism is there. The publisher basically blamed the "typesetters" and not the editors, which (believe it or not) is actually a common problem in publishing, and a very plausible explanation. But we can't take that and suddenly turn it around and claim plagiarism by the editor, because that's OR and SYNTH. Thus, as it actually reads in the source, it seems like a very insignificant thing for the subject of our article, hence very undue. Zaereth (talk) 02:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The bigger question here is not that it's "undue" weight, but why is it "undue"? Reading the source:, it is very legitimate content and given an article on a certain subject for what they are notable for inclusion at WP for would be perfectly acceptable to include for an encyclopedic article. However, since the article about the subject overall (in my estimation) is skirting a fine line for notable inclusion to begin with here at WP, any controversial inclusion of content such as this will be undue because there just isn't anything else in this subject's article to counter the weight. As I wrote on the Talk Page: Coi, on account of this discussion, light has now been brought to an otherwise poorly written, and I dare say: un-visited, and even questionable article that was created in 2017 and not edited for several years due to lack of new contribution entry content. It would seem without this new discovery, there might not be any new entries. So my question here is: should no new content be added simply because there is nothing of real substance to the article to begin with? If I had stumbled across this article just by happenstance, I seriously would have considered placing it up for AfD on the merits raised on the Talk Page. Plagiarism aside, the content exists, it should be phrased correctly and accordingly as the source says and included. If you are excluding based on "undue weight" than you must question the article as a whole. It is not undue to simply state that Badal was a victim of a publisher's error. A simple quote of explanation by Badal from within the source should suffice. After all, her notability is as a "researcher and a medical sciences lecturer" who authors writings on her applied field. Maineartists (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The source looks more like a blog than a reliable source. Maybe it has reliably factual information, but that certainly impacts its relevance towards adding weight in a BLP to such a minor issue that appears to have more to do with the publisher than the article subject who was an editor on the book. I agree with Zaereth and Morbidthoughts regarding their explainations for why the content is undue. – notwally (talk) 23:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Penny Morales Shaw
Can't read the source from the UK but is it enough to call this person a Communist? Added by this blocked IP Doug Weller  talk 17:02, 24 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Doug Weller Can you read ? This is their aboutpage:. Source seems to check out content-wize, but apart from the RS there is NPOV... though she may of course be the first communist (like) ever spotted in the Texas House of Representatives.
 * Found nothing at RSN, not a lot of WP-presence it seems:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Founded by Konni Burton the most conservative member . Thanks.of the Texas Senate. Definitely not an RS as the About page makes obvious Doug Weller  talk 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I can’t figure out how to find out if we use it elsewhere. “TheTexan.news” doesn’t seem to work. Doug Weller  talk 17:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ana Roš
My name is Urban Stojan Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:UrbanStojan) and I am responsible to handle the information about Ana Roš (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ana_Ro%C5%A1).

Our problem is, that a user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer is constantly publish false information about a living person Ana Roš Stojan. All information that we publish is supported by fact and edits by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer are false information and misleading. As such Ana Roš is suffering irreparable damage.

We have contacted user https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Launchballer but he refused to cooperate and is republishing false information.

I kindly ask the community for help provide the facts to the Wikipedia users. This is the link to changes: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ana_Ro%C5%A1&oldid=prev&diff=1230545116

Best regards, Urban
 * The edits I am reverting are WP:BLP violations. See also User talk:UrbanStojan, where I have warned the user for making legal threats.-- Laun chba ller 10:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Launchballer is publishing falls facts about Ana Roš and hurting her as she is sitting next to me as we speak. All the facts that i published are supported by proofs that I can provide if so needed. As I am not a skilled use, I kindly ask for help as Ana fells her identity to be taken hostage and her life work damaged. If there is a true mistake on the data I published I am more than willing to accept the change, but please restrain from publishing false and misleading information. Jus t for instance, Ana's full name is Ana Roš Stojan, she manages three project and not just Hiša Franko, Hiša Frnako has three Michelin stars and a green on, etc.) UrbanStojan (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Message typed by my wife, whos information you keep editing and replacing with false information:
 * "Hi, my name is Ana Roš Stojan and not Ana Roš.
 * I am a three Michelin star chef from Slovenia. I am also one of the two women in the world to hold three red stars and one green. I have been holding 3+1 stars since 2023, and I was confirmed 3+1 stars 10 days ago.
 * You continue changing my Wikipedia profile which is correct to the last information and misleading people with fake information.
 * This is fraud and I feel being stolen my personality and credits for my work.
 * Just wondering who are you to continue doing it?" UrbanStojan (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I am a Wikipedian enforcing WP:BLP policy. Please read it.-- Laun chba ller 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Any passing admin should please block both of these editors for their ridiculous edit war (6 or 7 reverts each in the past few hours). I notice Talk:Ana Roš is unused; shame on both of you. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Reverting BLP violations does not count towards any revert limits. —Jéské Couriano v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 22:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Is amazon.com a reliable source for personal information?
An editor added a date of birth and place of birth to Dana Barron with the edit summary, "Amazon is a reliable and reputable reference for date & city of birth of Dana".

The "Dana Barron" page on amazon.com has a small "IMDb" logo under Barron's biographical data, which I take to mean that the content above the logo came from IMDb. The "Dana Barron biography" on IMDb contains the same biographical data as that on the amazon.com page.

WP:IMDB is clear in stating that IMDb is not reliable. Should we say the same for amazon.com with regard to biographical data? Eddie Blick (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)


 * It is clearly from IMDB, so not a reliable source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Both Amazon and IMDB are a no. See WP:RSNP. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, under WP:DOB, dates of birth should really be "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". – notwally (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, @AndyTheGrump, @JFHJr, and @Notwally. I appreciate the feedback. Eddie Blick (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Kathleen Kennedy
There's currently a discussion about adding recent criticisms to the biography of Kathleen Kennedy. Any and all feedback is welcome. Thanks Nemov (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty WP:UNDUE when nothing else about her role in the Star Wars franchise is even mentioned in the article body. I removed it for now and left a comment on the talk page with a more detailed explanation. – notwally (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

'''Summary: ''' Kathleen Kennedy (producer)'s article has, for years now, had many editors trying to add coverage regarding criticisms of leadership of the Star Wars franchise. It seems this stems from the modern culture wars in the US. One particular editor, User:Nemov, for years now has constantly reverted any and all negative references to Kennedy. Various editors have aired grievances in the Talk Page about the current state of the article reading like a press release, only focusing on accolades and non-noteworthy trivia, while having 0 criticisms about the subject allowed. I added recent paragraphs, in what I thought is a Neutral point of view style, got reverted twice, User:Nemov posted on my Talk Page twice, and refused to discuss in good faith. This happened before with other editors and he has been subject to a Dispute Resolution before on this.

More details:

User:Nemov has constantly reverted any criticisms and referred to the need for anything to be newsworthy via reliable sources on the articles Talk Page. The above, taken at face value, might seem ok even though it violates Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". Instead of correcting or improving the additions, like finding RS+ to use, the article's history shows that of the last 100 edits, 24 were made by said user, usually reverting. The current sources accepted in the article before today, by the way, include: NY Post, Hollywood Daily, Yahoo!, MSN, Box Office Mojk, and Slashfilm.com. They are all, of course, used for positive statements on Kennedy. It seems like a double standard is being applied when a contentious or negative claim has been added by many other editors.

Still, I decided to give a try today, and wrote 3 paragraphs condensing all the very recent criticisms published by RS using sources like NYT, Variety, Forbes, Deadline, Hollywood Reporter, and Vanity Fair. I made sure to reconfirm they are all good RS for media and entertainment, as per Reliable sources/Perennial sources. In brief seconds after I posted the additions, which I strived for a Neutral point of view, User:Nemov reverted it and posted twice to my Talk Page, warning me on the topic. I posted on the Talk Page regarding this sub-section and User:Nemov was very aggressive and did not argue in good faith. He refused to even try and reach for consensus. Two other editors then chimed in and agreed that the criticisms of Kennedy should be featured in the article but in less words than what I had typed up. I welcomed it and asked for any editor to improve it. A few hours go by, and User:Notwally, who has never edited this article, reverted my addition, claiming Verifiability (the same argument used by User:Nemov, and that 3 paragraphs was excessive. I want to reiterate that on that same talk page I had welcomed any improvement to the text, but this seems like plain censorship. Of note, User:Nemov and User:Notwally both have edited other articles together, like Pine Tree Flag. Moreover, User:Nemov has been a consistent editor and participant of very contentious articles frequently referenced in these modern culture wars in the US like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Hunter Biden, Andy Ngo, and others. This all leads me to believe there might be collusion between both editors and that User:Nemov is not editing within the non-negotiable Neutral point of view.

Of note, I asked User:Nemov twice in the Talk Page, in a polite way, if he could confirm he had no Conflict of interest on Kathleen Kennedy. He refused twice to answer said question. It is obvious Kennedy's public criticisms, which has been referenced for years and by many RS' merits inclusion in an article that currently includes factoids such as the first job Kennedy got out high school. One more contentious part of the history of this article is that User:Nemov was wholly responsible for "protecting" the article from having a single reference to the popular television special South Park: Joining the Panderverse which features this issue, criticisms of Kennedy's handling of IP like Star Wars, as its central point. That article references Kennedy 18 times and her own article has 0 references to this. User:Nemov argued in the Talk Page that South Park lampooned everybody and that this was trivial. This led to User:Xam2580 initiating a Dispute Resolution against User:Nemov which, sadly, fizzled out due to lack of participation. Link here.

All of the above explains the current state of the article. I would ask for a non-involved experienced editor or two to take a look at the history and talk page of Kathleen Kennedy (producer), consider the above information and my recent addition, and edit it down to whatever seems due and NPOV for WP. User:Nemov has constantly reverted this article, for years, in what seems is a concerted effort to protect Kathleen Kennedy from any criticism, to the detriment of WP's NPOV and mission.

2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * A quick addition is that checking this Noticeboard's history I see a few minutes ago both User:Nemov and User:Notwally posted here regarding the above topic. A few sentences each. Oddly, a minute after I posted the above, User:Notwally deleted both their comments. It seems either they are communicating which other, some sort of collusion or possible Sockpuppetry (I hope this is not true). I don't imagine how two wholly separate editors would delete each others Noticeboard comments unless it doesn't look good to them and they are indeed working together.
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Aside from WP:AGF and WP:PA, I think it is important to note that many public figures are criticized throughout their life. That does not mean it is WP:DUE or relevant to include in an article about them. Also, you can ignore or misrepresent what other people have said, but it is not going to help your case. Four people on the article's talk page have all agreed that your addition is excessive. You need to use the article's talk page to reach a consensus on what to include, actually address what other editors have said there, and stop making baseless accusations against other editors. – notwally (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I just want to verify a few things here:
 * -did you revert my edit instead of fixing it or improving it?
 * -did you consider the Talk Page where other experienced editors agreed that criticisms of Kathleen Kennedy should be included? (even if there is no consensus on the form/lenght)
 * -did you then stated there was no consensus for your quick revert?
 * -did you warn me on my talk page, same as User:Nemov, even though I had asked you on the talk page to not post on my talk page?
 * -did you briefly post here, on this Noticeboard, then User:Nemov replied under you very quickly, and after I posted this you deleted your and User:Nemov's post? why delete another editor's?
 * -assuming GF, can you confirm here you are not User:Nemov, to dispel any worries of Sockpuppetry?
 * Thanks.
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum to discuss user behavior. It appears IP has a consensus that IP doesn't like. IP is no longer discussing any WP:BLP issues at this time. JFHJr (㊟) 02:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Understood. This is not the space for user behavior discussion. I do want to point out that there is consensus on including the information on the article's Talk Page. Thanks.
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Another addition: my addition was reverted once more. I am not posting on the edit warring noticeboard since this is open. I took into consideration the suggestions of two other, un-involved editors on the Talk Page that it was too long and condensed it to half the words. It got immediately reverted with no explanation. There is a clear level of gatekeeping happening on this article where instead of fixing or editing, the idea is to revert and ignore consensus.
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 02:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I apologize for the length of this comment, but I didn't have time to write a short one. First, Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is an essay not a policy, but WP:BLPRESTORE is a policy, and part of BLP policy to boot. It says if someone feels that this is a violation of BLP policy then no one should restore the information until consensus is achieved on the talk page to do so. BLP policy works with, but ultimately trumps all other policies because it is such an important policy. That means, if you want the info restored, you need to first hammer it all out on the talk page first.


 * Next, accusations of censorship will almost always get you eye rolls from everyone who reads it. It comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the word. It's not censorship to leave out info that is irrelevant, or possibly undue weight. Weight and balance is fairly simple in that it's a basic math problem (although the math itself can be quite complicated), it's basically figuring out how much space --if any-- it deserves in the article as a matter of percentages. Does it deserve an entire section, a single paragraph, or a single sentence? Or would even one sentence be too much? That is the main question that needs to be answered.


 * Finally, as constructive criticism of your addition, it's rather verbose, including the title. I mean, for example, is it really necessary to name the article subject in the title of a section? The section uses a hell of a lot of WP:Weasel words, most of which are "critics". What critics? Do these people have names? If not, why should I care what they think? What does Elon Musk have to do with anything? He's not a movie critic. It seems like a lot of tacking-on for mere repetition, just to inflate the size. Then, it lacks any and all context for the average reader to understand. (Similar to many scientific articles on Wikipedia.) In other words, it's written for people who already know everything about it, not for the general reader who has none of the background info. For example, it keeps talking about a "woke agenda". What the hell does that even mean? (Seriously, I have never heard the jargon "woke agenda" before. What does it mean?) What does the subject actually have to do with Star Wars? Besides a short blurb in the lede, there is really no information on this in the body.


 * An encyclopedia is a summary of the sources. That's what makes them so useful, they cut away all the boring, mind-numbing details and boil everything down to the nitty gritty. The bare bones. From what I can see those three paragraphs could easily be whittled down to a single sentence or two, and that would be far less boring and easier to comprehend. Writing is hard work. Say more with less, that's my advice. But what you need to do is work it all out on the talk page first. Hammer, cut, and wordsmith until you get a consensus, and then it can be put into the article. And try to do so with a friendly attitude, because a defensive one will only cause people to dig their heels in deeper. Not as easy as complaining about other editors, I know, but that's what needs to be done to achieve your goal. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * How about we agree on at least one mention or one sentence that merely mentions the vast amounts of criticism Kennedy has received? Why don't we agree to start with that? Xam2580 (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree ^
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Lengthy replies can help to explain things. I am but an IP editor and will remain so. There are people who devote their lives to maneuvering the very intricate and regulated WP system of what is allowed when and how.
 * If I understood correctly, any BLP can have any editor delete a sentence, paragraph or section they disagree with and it remains so, given BLPRESTORE, until consensus has been reached on the Talk Page? Or does this only apply to recent additions?
 * The above is a valid question since I could see easy abuse of said rules, say, assume an editor that mostly focuses on a few BLP articles, checks their watchlist and anything that gets added, even a sentence or a link, that they disagree with, they would immediately revert and this addition/modification would need consensus on the Talk Page, right? How about a possible editor that seeks new additions on any BLP just to delete them and, given the above, said additions are forced to go through a consensus stage on the Talk Page. Does this make sense or am I missing something?
 * These questions are genuine and coming from a place of understanding. I strongly believe in WP's mission and from time to time try to improve things. On this article I noticed that for years no single controversy has been "allowed" on the article. Very rarely has consensus been solicited on the Talk Page either and not in a formal capacity. It seems one user (potentially two users but there is a request for Sockpuppetry going on) has been directly responsible for enforcing the above rules and unquestionable reverts any and all criticism of the article's subject. I would implore you or an administrator to look through the Talk Page and see all the times, including archived posts, that criticisms have been suggested by many users and nothing has been added. I went to great pains to only include many RS, as per WP, but nothing comes out of it.
 * Given the above, what is the best way to improve things? If I add anything right now, even if its the slightest sentence or two (because I tried), I will be reverted. Two other non-involved editors agreed on then Talk Page the criticisms need to be included. We have one of the older editors who tried, like me, to add a neutral POV criticism with sources here pleading the same case. All of this could easily make somebody see gatekeeping.
 * On the contents, you mentioned you've never heard of "woke agenda" and that's fine. I would suggest Woke#2019–present: as a pejorative. "Woke agenda" actually redirects there on WP.
 * I would request for you, for example, to help the article and provide that two sentence summary you proposed. As an un-involved editor, the warring editor(s) shouldn't have an issue with a proposal from you.
 * Thanks for your time.
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * If it's a matter of BLP policy, then yes. BLP policy is far too important that it needs to override everything else. If this means erring on the side of caution, then so be it. We need to be careful and take our time to get it right.


 * The best way to improve things is like I said. Talk it out on the talk page. Copy-paste your addition there, and then work on it until it's just right. Aside from BLP policy, it's just better than warring about it on article space. For example, see this discussion on the Kelvin article.


 * My critique was more about good writing versus bad writing, and to be perfectly blunt, the writing was bad. That's the thing about being a writer, you have to thrive on criticism. Want it. Need it. Learn from it. Don't just give me a link to "woke" I'll never click. Writing should never need wikilinks to explain what it's talking about. It should simply explain what it's talking about, as precisely yet concisely as possible. The question I asked you are the same questions the average reader will be asking. Try to predict those questions and answer them beforehand, right there in the text.


 * I don't know anything about this subject, nor do I really care, and my time is very limited here in the summer. We got three months to get everything done, but luckily the sun never sets. Sorry, if you want this it's your burden to put in the effort necessary. I just monitor this board and give people helpful advice from time to time. Try to help explain why they're having the problems they encounter. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Your history is accurate. I am just too busy lol. But I appreciate the mention.
 * I will quickly add that all that I wanted was at least one (and only one minimum) mention of some criticism of this person. It could have been a sentence or, as I suggested, a neutral link in the "see also" page linking to the south park page for people to discover themselves. I had seen some of the extensive debates and thought this would be a neutral way to mention the criticism. But even that was too much for some users and I am just too busy these days to fight it. I personally think it is ridiculous and violative of NPOV to exclude all criticism from a public figure and I appreciate anyone pursuing this! Xam2580 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for trying. For literal years a single editor has prevented proper and extensively covered RS from being included in this BLP. I even asked them twice if they had any conflicts of interest ands they refused to answer that.
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well this is why all I pushed for was a simple change. It seems 1 editor has had a massive impact of this page and cannot tolerate any criticism of Kathleen whatsoever, not even simple mentions that disagreement exists. Xam2580 (talk) 03:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Once again, you'll never get anywhere if you make this about other editors. Those arguments only hurt your case, not help it. Zaereth (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree, and am absolutely willing to objectively and neutrally resolve this issue. In fact, this is my preferred outcome. That being said, on some level, this issue pretty much is about one or two editors (I have never received such pushback from mere attempts at mentioning rampant criticism of a public figure). But your point is well taken and who knows; maybe people have changed their minds. I'll dispassionately approach this issue and will refrain from making further comments about past issues. Xam2580 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry User:Zaereth, you are responding to another editor. An older one who went through the same issues on the same article as I did in the past.
 * 2601:19E:427E:5BB0:F539:9F5E:C4A4:8CAA (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Requesting third opinions at Bronze Age Pervert
@User:Секретное общество and I are going back on forth on this article and I'd appreciate if some other editors can step in to break one deadlock and resolve another longstanding issue. The longer-standing issue is Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert, which has been a slow edit war going back and forth for months. I don't have strong feelings here, but IPs and SPAs do. The second is the inclusion of a couple of largely unsourced infoboxes on BAP's various media enterprises. See Talk:Bronze_Age_Pervert. Any further reversions by me are effectively edit warring, so I'd appreciate some input. Alyo (chat·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * We normally don't Jew-tag people, especially not as part of nationality. MOS:NATIONALITY covers this. Is there anything in those book infoboxes that isn't covered in the sections on those books? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the sense that they have collected every piece of fancruft regarding the length, file type, and theme music for a podcast whose actual sourced prose section is only two lines long. The sources they added are just back to the podcast itself. Same idea for the book. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 14:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Global Witness
Kirkylad, who has declared a Conflict of Interest with the NGO Global Witness, recently added a new section containing research and comments made by Global Witness to the article Sultan Al Jaber. As a note, I myself have made a COI edit request on behalf of COP28 on this article, which is currently still open on the Talk page.

The third paragraph of this section beginning "An investigation by Global Witness..." appears to breach WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and I feel also resembles WP:ADVOCACY. The investigation mentioned is one which Global Witness themselves have carried out, and the content has been added by an editor linked to the organisation. Whilst the sources cited are from reliable third-party outlets, the claims are quoted from the Global Witness investigation, and as such require oversight from someone outside that group, especially to make sure the claims fully comply with WP:BLPPUBLIC.

The second paragraph of the section beginning "BBC News reported ..." referencing an alleged increase in ADNOC's oil production is already a contested point under discussion in the currently live COI request, and is an unnecessary duplication of content within the "Abu Dhabi National Oil Company" section of the page. It is also not strictly related to the topic of the newly created section, and as the claim is again based upon analysis by Global Witness, it is not appropriate for Kirkylad to add this information directly to the article given their COI.

Could someone who does not have a conflict of interest please take a look at this contribution to check tone, source quality, undue emphasis etc. Thank you! Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Dedemocha (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Campbell Brown (journalist)
I grew up watching Campbell Brown (journalist) so when I saw that her article had some tags on it, one of which was for UPE, I took it upon myself to clean it up. Ive now done this. Could someone please take a look at it and see if it's in a position for this tag to be removed. Thanks. If it's not ready, please let me know where it requires more work. Thank you. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Draft:2023 Orchard Road rioting (2)
Can people check the article and my actions please, and if necessary delete or revdel? I first moved 2023 Orchard Road rioting to draft space when it looked like this, with e.g. the long list of "criminal charges". I now moved the improved version back to draft space because it still contains in my opinion way too many names of living people accused but not convicted of all kinds of things, from being part of criminal organisations to murder. Fram (talk) 08:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

RFC regarding MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE at Steven van de Velde
There's currently a discussion about the first sentence of the lead at Steven van de Velde. This could use some feedback from members with experience on BLP issues. Thanks! Nemov (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand the obsession some editors have with poorly written lead sentences. It is possible to describe someone and summarize their notable aspects without merely a series of nouns. – notwally (talk) 19:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The MOS doesn't give a lot of guidance on this at all, but it's a matter of good writing versus bad writing. The lede should be written at a 6th grade level, but should not read like it was written by a 6th grader. I've had a lot of schooling, training, and real-life experience in this, so I could charge good money for what I'm giving here for free. Having an opening sentence like that comes off to the reader as childish and stupid, and is that truly what anybody wants? There's no way to sugarcoat it, but that's what it is.


 * Good writing is idiomatic, meaning people know it when they see it, but can't usually tell you what makes it good. That's because so many of the principles are counterintuitive and must be learned. It needs context, coherence, and flow. The first sentence is important only for creating context. This is called the "topic sentence", and the only purpose is to provide context for the following sentences. But it's not the place to make any kind of point. The only thing it needs to do is tell us in very broad terms what the subject is.


 * People never remember the first sentence, so it's not the most important one. People remember the last thing they see. By far, the most important sentence in the entire article is the last sentence of the first paragraph, which is called the "thesis sentence". This is where the point is laid out.


 * For example, see the article on Adolph Hitler. That is a perfect example of what a well-written article looks like. We don't start off by saying he was a bigot and murderer. We start off by describing what he was, which was the chancellor of Germany and head of the Nazi Party, which provides context for the reader. We save the most important fact for the thesis sentence, which is his role in genocide. We don't call him names, but describe what he actually did. The same is true for this subject (or any other for that matter.) My advice is don't put so much emphasis on cramming everything into the first sentence, because that's actually counter to whatever goal people are trying to achieve. It's important, but not for the reasons most people think. Far more important is the thesis sentence, because that is the main point of the article. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jpatokal vs Michael Ezra
I believe senior contributor, @jpatokal, has gone rogue. He has violated many of the norms of the WP:BLP with impunity.

He was caught at it 11 years ago: Jpatokal The information you have posted is contentious and libelous. BLP editing rules state it must be removed immediately if unsourced or ‘poorly sourced’. There is no record of that article anywhere other than on the Ugandanet platform which is not a genuine newspaper archive. Please refer to the rules on NOR and Verifiability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prodigalson49 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

He is at it again: @Jpatokal, you have violated almost every principle in BLP! Addressing the banner you placed on this page verbatim: This article needs to be updated... - with what? by whom? do you have new info? 90% of references used are dead links and story filled with Outdated Facts... - Wrong! Original links exist along with links to an archive of the original reference. How do "facts" become outdated? They could be disproved but not outdated! Subject reported as a Hoax... - your linked ref on "Hoax" seems contrary to what you are trying to convey in your banner as per its opening paragraph. So much for NPOV. ...with a multitude of Bankruptcy court cases - your linked webpage has no bearing to the sensational allegation of bankruptcy. ...involving many bouncing cheques... - another sensational reference to "many" but referencing just one case whose outcome is not even mentioned. ...among many others - yet another sensational reference to "many" with a singular citation of a tabloid news article. Cherry picking one of your edits: ...also known as Michael Ezra Kato - a senior contributor should know better than to provide an archived blog post as a reference. This was the balance you brought to the article to remove a NPOV banner you place on the article (could not help but take a negative shot at the man)? The subject of this page is known and dear to many. He might also have many enemies out there but Wikipedia should not be the place to settle such scores (going by their policies). This is not Michael! Please undo all your aggressive/ill-intended edits unless you have new FACTS to add to the article. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC) Every single edit I made is backed up by references. The one you "picked out" is not a blog post, but the text of an article published in the Sunday Vision in April 2004 and helpfully archived by somebody. Jpatokal (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am following through with the recommended procedures of complaints but honestly have little hope for justice as he seems to enjoy the support of some of the other contributors/admins (and probably sits on the panel that reviews this escalation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.167.92.26 (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Uhh... I have no clue what you're asking for here. Are these quotes from talk page discussions or something? If so, what is the point you're trying to make? Is this in relation to some specific article? If so, which article? We don't deal in justice here, so if your complaint is about editor behavior, then you should take it to WP:ANI, but try to be more direct and provide diffs to support whatever it is you think this user did wrong. If it's about something that violates BLP policy, we'd need to know what you think those violations are and links to the article in question so we can investigate it ourselves. As is, I don't see anything here to really go on, so not sure what you want us to do. Zaereth (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * This section is obviously a request for additional participants in the discussion here. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Brigitte Macron
The Brigitte Macron page appears to be going through multiple rounds of edits & reverts due to concerted efforts by some to add transgenderism claims without citing reliable sources for the living person. Admin action was taken on June 20th, but today the issue has resurfaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4001:85D0:14D4:9116:55B9:EA5F (talk) 23:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I have semi-protected the article again, this time for three months. Let me know if any further nonsense arises. Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Olu Jacobs (Case of death and Disruptive editings on the article page)
There are death rumors surrounding this person. See Talk:Olu Jacobs#Is Olu Jacobs dead? and the article page and help revert Vandalism Wår (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Julie Johnson (actress)
Julie Johnson was married to David Lee Johnson from 1997-2002 and had one child, Trey in 1998.

Julie’s father was named David Lee Johnson, so when she married my brother David it created a lot of confusion with the invitations. This is also why Julie’s son is called Trey, since both his father and grandfather were named David Lee (though not related).

Source: I am David’s brother and Trey’s uncle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.248.1.244 (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Sources based off of one's unpublished personal knowledge has a shelf life. Do you have a published third-party source that corroborates this? —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 18:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any source for that marriage or the marriage to Dylan Paul Thomas that was in the article, and so I removed it for now. – notwally (talk) 05:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Clementine Ford (writer)
I wanted to get some input here from others before I take a large action, since I see from the talk page of Clementine Ford (writer) that, while there's a lot of separate sections and concerns raised, no one has done anything.

The entirety of the rather lengthy "Social media" section should just be removed, right? Like, pretty much everything in it is a BLP violation using individual news articles to discuss individual tweets or things on Facebook or other nonsense, right? I'm trying to make sure I'm not missing something obvious here. Silver seren C 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I'm handing you my cleaver while I step away for some time in the dirt. I'll check back in a few hours. JFHJr (㊟) 21:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph seemed ok to me, but maybe I'm missing something. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In my edit summary when I removed the section, I noted that some of the content could be potentially salvageable. But would need to be rewritten and reorganized. And probably shouldn't have its own section just for that. Silver  seren C 00:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Silver seren: Great work, looks better! I agree with the WP:WEIGHT concerns: a separate social media section is probably not going to be up to snuff. With the same concerns, I've condensed sections for topical relevance and moved a glut of refs from the lede to the body (and removed one primary ref that served no purpose). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 02:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Singer Konshens first picture is a different person
First picture on wiki site Konshens is not actually konshens, but someone else. 2A02:2454:E60:5700:3149:3B55:1E22:93DA (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I found this recent image of him . Bear in mind that many of the images of him on a Google search are 10-15 years old, promotional, or both. Black Kite (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I removed the image from the article because it was of a completely different artist named Tarik Davis that went by the name "Konshens the MC". Feel free to replace it with an appropriate image.  Recon  rabbit  13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Ken Hovind
Many of the “facts” in this page are inflammatory and overly biased. It makes accusations with zero evidence to back them up. It’s obvious to me that the person or persons who wrote this are seeking to use ad hominem attacks and straw-man arguments to summarily dismiss Ken Hovind’s views which are held by many credentialed scientists with PHD’s from state universities. It’s a lazy, shallow attempt to attack the historical position of Christians without actually producing any evidence to support their claims. I don’t personally know Mr.Hovind or even agree with many of his views. This is nothing more than a hit-piece by someone with obvious bias. Is this the standard that Wikipedia aspires to? 69.77.210.17 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not that this is a particularly serious request that editors on this board need to respond to, but it's Kent Hovind. Alyo  (<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">chat</b>·<b style="font-family:courier; font-size:small">edits</b>) 21:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * A WP-article about a person is supposed to be a summary about independent WP:RS about that person. If that is what the article is, then that is what Wikipedia aspires to. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Revert off obvious flamebait. Do not reply to it. —<i style="color: #1E90FF;">Jéské Couriano</i> v^&lowbar;^v  threads critiques 23:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Family Tree templates and BLP
I came across this family tree today, which includes the full names of living (and dead) people, some with articles and others who are apparently non-notable, and it's all entirely unsourced. WP:BLPNAME suggests that we remove the names of living persons who not notable public figures—but that defeats the purpose of a family tree. Maybe that's a good thing?

Category:Family tree templates is filled with family trees, though many of them are for (long dead) historical figures, historical dynasties, animal groups, languages—those should all be fine. But is there a bigger problem with family trees that are unsourced and/or include the names of non-notable living persons? Woodroar (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The sourcing and whether filiation is contentious are the main concerns. But mere mentions of non-notables are less inherently problematic than they are a threshold determination for requiring sources and solid ones for contentious claims. JFHJr (㊟) 21:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In the tree you linked, the forefathers and siblings of Naqi Ali appear irrelevant. So do Hasnain Raza and Faiz Raza; they could all probably be removed unless there's some kind of relevance to an article's content and it's supported by a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 21:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that the lack of sourcing is an issue, and that some content (at least) should be removed. But doesn't WP:BLPNAME suggest that we remove every non-notable person? Should we replace removed names with any placeholder text?
 * I also wonder what the point is. A family tree might be relevant in, say, articles about royal families where everyone is notable. But what use are they when only half of the people mentioned are notable—especially if we end up having to remove the names of non-notables? Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Lea DeLaria
More eyes would be appreciated at Lea DeLaria. She recently posted controversial comments on social media. We're getting BLP vio at the article and simultaneously trying to figure out the best way to cover the comments in this discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems like a rush to include a statement only covered in a single reliable source from what I could find. My general opinion is that controversial statements should not be included in biographies unless there is enduring coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and a lot of notable people say a lot of stupid stuff. I also left a more detailed comment on the talk page. – notwally (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Graham E. Fuller
I'm afraid I don't know much about BLP policies. Someone ought to look at this recent IP removal ( and the previous edit). The rationale is "Right to be forgotten, EU privacy" which I doubt has any standing over WP; to me the removal seems like an involved party removing cited information. But then again, I don't know the nuances of BLP, so if someone else could take a look, that would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aza24 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't know that Wikipedia respects the EU right to be forgotten (and none of the individuals involved appear to be EU citizens anyway!) but "subject's non-notable daughter was married until 1999 to someone who was the uncle of someone else who wasn't notable at the time but now is" seems like a pretty tenuous link and I doubt it's worthy of inclusion in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Controversial content on BLPs should have multiple high quality sources citing it. I agree the link seems pretty tenuous. – notwally (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Jason Zadrozny
Could someone double check and see if Jason Zadrozny paragraphs one and three need to be there. This edit at Ashfield Independents is also relevant. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 06:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the child sex allegations would be appropriate to include if there is enduring coverage in multiple sources. Do news reports about the article subject still mention this, or was all the coverage from the year of the court proceedings? As for the fraud and election-related charges, those seem particularly relevant to a politician's biography since they relate directly to the reason he is notable. In general, I think privacy concerns have less weight for politicians than for other public figures and we should be more willing to include accusations in their biographies, although they still need to be noteworthy and reliably sourced. – notwally (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Emmanuel Mogenet
No one thought it odd at the time that Emmanuel Mogenet was created by Emmanuel Mogenet? Anything to do about it now? MaskedSinger (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * After removal of WP:NOTCV info that was not supported by RS, this person's notability is unclear and may need an AfD discussion. I will prod it first. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since it was previously prodded, I sent it to AfD. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @MaskedSinger Thanks for catching this. For next time, this kind of report is better suited to WP:COIN and requires no administrator action. Toadspike   [Talk]  14:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Karlton Hester
It appears that uncited material was removed from the article but the notice tag remains unchanged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:cd02:32b0:714d:c327:d7d0:c06e (talk • contribs)
 * The article still needs improving, so the tags are valid IMHO. GiantSnowman 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mohamed Ashmalee
The article about Mohamed Ashmalee was (or is) in a horrible state. A large section, restored by multiple experienced editors since 2022 turns out to be a verbatim copy of the cited non-free source, et cetera. Courtesy ping, , and  who could perhaps have noticed this when verifying whether the section restored by them is actually backed by the cited source. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice that there was a copyvio involved. In hindsight I should have looked a little deeper into how much text was added for the corruption allegation; but I don't see anything that disqualifies the source itself.
 * I was not sure of the motives behind repeatedly removing text with no explanation other than "wrong", "untrue" or "truth" when I engaged once. I would agree a deeper look is needed into the subject. LizardJr8 (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I've reverted this only edit because I thought the IP address removed a large section of the article without giving a valid reason. I also didn't notice that section of the article was a copyright violation. Looking at the history, several IP addresses and users were indeed removing that section, but some weren't providing an edit summary or were explaining that it was "the truth" or simply: "yes", which sounded suspicious.
 * I've also requested CSD of the image, as that portrait was taken from the person's Facebook account and was sourced as "Own work". 🛧 Midori No Sora♪ 🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈  ) 00:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've opened a discussion at the talk page to discuss content addition proposals. I've also edited the article to remove generic urls that failed WP:V, unarchived dead links, and lots of stray caps (copyediting). I tagged unreffed claims; this content currently is the majority of the article. I have not removed unreffed claims that touch on notability, but a few unrelated ones got the scalpel. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This matter has been forwarded to WP:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Ashmalee. I did not mention the BLP violations, but IYKYK. Thanks to all for input anyone has at AfD. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Ashley Gjøvik
A request at WP:RPPI from an IP asks that this article be semi-protected. Another IP opposes the first. There is a storm of editing going on there and I'm hoping someone will work out what is going on and whether admin action is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is a massive WP:BLPPRIMARY mine field with too many things cited solely to court documents. One IP had the nerve to revert and wikilawyer an administrator, . I have a suspicion these ip addresses are PR-ing and litigating through wikipedia and the article needs an extensive clean-up. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100, Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13 and Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * There is a pattern of IP addresses that have never made edits to WP before making 1 or 2 edits and then disappearing. I suggest that the person doing this knows what they're doing and is doing this intentionally to evade a previous ban. See evidence from here Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents and in particular, this section posted to another user's talk page from a throwaway IP accusing that editor of "casting aspersions" for making claims that this IP-hopper isn't (implausibly) a new person for every new IP they're using. I wasn't aware of the history of this page before the recent twitter threads, news articles etc., but based on what you have linked above, I think it's very plausible that this IP hopper is the same person as SquareInARoundHole. Note: I've only made a couple edits since my dynamic IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person or using proxies across many different ISPs. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I did an extensive clean-up that addressed the BLPPRIMARY and ABOUTSELF concerns. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's impressive work, Morbidthoughts, because that article was a mess. – notwally (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * It may be noted for the record that this article and Cher Scarlett were, some years ago, the subject of a protracted episode involving both of the articles' subjects themselves. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 23:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
 * See Special:Permalink/1071273528. I believe there was some big noticeboard kerfluffu as well, although I don't have a link on hand. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 23:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Question: I am not overly familiar with BLP policies. Is the reason that court documents are not allowed is that they become Original Research because they are easy to MIS-interpret? (I saw lots of those additions, but didn't know about the applicability of court documents as sources for what seemed to be simple statements like "lawsuit dismissed with/out prejudice").

I understand WP:BLP : "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - but I would think that would pertain to info like allegations of misconduct/criminal charges, not whether a lawsuit is active, dismissed, settled, or adjudicated. --- Avatar317 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I take a broad view of WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition. The need to complete a story is not a reason to start ignoring this policy. It is an argument that is against WP:WEIGHT if no secondary reliable sources report on the outcome. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally (talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Published case law (which is not court documents in the sense of public records) is used frequently on Wikipedia - quick search of Reuters casetext yields 1,100 results. Many are on BLPs. WP:RSLAW is worth a read. RICO is pretty much the most serious accusation someone can lodge and the only source of it is an Apple blog. If it's worth including, I can't see how published case law that it was dismissed (especially with prejudice) isn't also warranted. The fact it was adjudicated doesn't seem like a minor detail. Changed my mind on this because of Johnuniq's note below. Say ocean again (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Wikipedia because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally (talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note this IP address has only ever made this one edit, to this talk page. See above about sockpuppeting on this article as this editor is almost certainly a known quantity; since they are no longer able to edit the article, they are now editing administrative threads trying to influence how it is being edited.
 * I've only made a couple edits since my IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't control my IP address and have never contributed in a way that wasn't clear I'm one person. I requested page protections for the very reason that you and unknown number of others were edit warring and the article itself was posted on as a community note from a Twitter thread with tens of thousands of retweets.
 * I made an account to make it clear, even though I disagree with it on principle for the purpose of this BLPN conversation. Say ocean again (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I was saying that they are Published vs Public records, not that they aren't court documents.
 * My question is whether or not AppleInsider is a reliable source for inclusion on a BLP.
 * A second question would be for lawsuits and legal complaints that are never reported on again, at what point should we remove them from a BLP as Recentism, if we cannot include case law? Say ocean again (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The issue about AppleInsider should be up for discussion. Even if reliable, it and another source, Index on Censorship, definitely should not be given as much as weight as sources like Financial Times, The Verge, or New York Times. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Discussion: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik Say ocean again (talk) 03:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Using court documents and similar is very undesirable because their meaning can be misunderstood by onlookers, and because they can be contradicted in another document, and because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI, I have semi-protected the article for 6 months. Lectonar (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)


 * FYI, there's a related conversation happening at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons with good information on this topic. Say ocean again (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Discussion about inclusion of content
Content from Special:Diff/1231386224/1231391075
 * Moved to: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik Say ocean again (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Say ocean again (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This kind of extensive, detailed discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page. – notwally (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

In vitro fertilisation
In this edit a previously uncited but vague mention of unprofessional conduct by unnamed doctors has become a direct accusation against a named person. It remains uncited. The editor who added the new sentence, who appears to have a conflict of interest, says they will edit war to keep the paragraph in place. Extra eyes would be useful. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I have removed the paragraph consisting of BLP violations. While the information added is likely true, the burden is on the editor adding the information to provide a citation. The behavior of SuperinfoTU on their talk page is not encouraging. It suggests that they see no issues in their policy violations thus far and expect to continue violating myriad policies. An admin should consider a NOTHERE block. Toadspike   [Talk]  14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * As I've explained before I respect the policy. You are bored going back and forth. SuperinfoTU (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Aimee Knight
I do a lot of work in AFDLand and right now we have one, Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight where there might be BLP concerns. There has been some Twitter canvassing going on and lots of low edit, sporadically editing, accounts participating in the discussion who might not be that familiar with Wikipedia policies, like WP:BLP. I'd welcome some evaluation by editors knowledgeable about BLP concerns to state whether there are legitimate BLP issues or if there are not. Thank you. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 23:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Jean-Luc Mélenchon
I'm concerned about the "Controversies" section of this article per WP:CSECTION and WP:BLP. Particularly concerning is the seven paragraph subsection on "Accusations of antisemitism". Note that this is not only a BLP but an active politician (not sure if that is relevant but it seems like it ought to be).

I'd be curious to hear what those more knowledgeable about our BLP policies think about this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't speak French, but a search of "Jean-Luc Mélenchon" and "conspiracy theories" produces many results from newspapers I do recognize as reliable. The heading does seem to unduly suggest there are "controversies" instead of just criticism, so I'd suggest that should probably be changed. The criticism itself appears due based on my search. Say ocean again (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Nina Power
Could someone please look at Nina Power and especially Talk:Nina Power, where editors are seeking to include material about a libel case based solely on primary sources. I suspect that the core factual statements may well be correct, although the tone of the edits is quite lurid, but there's no secondary sourcing for anything beyond the initiation of the case. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I've removed the stuff which were sourced to court documents and self published sources not from Nina Power. Possibly the best solution is just deletion though. From what I see, there are currently zero secondary sources about Nina Power in that article. Instead, it just seems to be sourced to what she has published in various UK papers etc. I haven't done WP:BEFORE so perhaps such sources exist, but definitely the article seems to be highly problematic as it stands. Nil Einne (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I agree that it's all pretty marginal. See Articles for deletion/Nina Power for some previous discussion. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not clear what the actual problem is, folks. A look at the history shows that previously, secondary sources were removed (e.g. a pair of reviews of art shows mentioning her). And now, court findings cannot be included even when they bear directly on confirmed facts, or when they act as a secondary source confirming the subject's own words and actions?
 * This is someone that's been a (generally minor, sector-specific less minor) public figure on a (public) political journey rightwards. The only edits I've seen in response to asking for tightening up the wording and sourcing has been over-broad and wholesale deletion of recent updates that form a part of that public political journey. Chaikney (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I think court findings are WP:PRIMARY. We should probably wait for a secondary source, i.e. news media, to report, unfortunately. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Brief aside: It appears that she is known for her anti-trans advocacy (she has self identified as part of "TERF" island in one article). that's probably why there is a fair bit of interest on both sides now, and why many folks want to keep her article in the past AfD.
 * I agree, starting an AfD may be best, there isn't enough independent sources about her. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * hmm, change my mind, I see some sourcing that is significant. Many of her book reviews also include criticisms of her past history. Should be correct to include the book reviews, and include attributed opinions around her politics in her bio. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing much on her, but plenty on her book. Seems that might be the better subject of an article?
 * The Nazi bit seems entirely undue from searches. Say ocean again (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

TESCREAL#Alleged TESCREALists
I want some input. Following WP:BLP, @Avatar317 removed significant amounts of material from the TESCREAL article (See diff

I'd argue material is fairly well sourced, and many of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE (i.e. Elon Musk, SBF, Sam Altman, and various high level philosophers).

As per WP:BLP, in cases of conflict, I was told to escalate here on noticeboard for suggestions from community.

Some background: Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Admin Arbitrarily0 closed an AfD for TESCREAL with merge on December 2023. It was closed for lack of WP:N
 * Multiple sources since December have used the term and analyzed it. I used Draftspace to improve and asked User_talk:Arbitrarily0 to see if it could be undeleted.
 * It was undeleted today by admin. Avatar317 is upset and has also opposed Template:Did_you_know_nominations/TESCREAL


 * From WP:PUBLICFIGURE:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific about which portion of this section is of concern for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Anything OTHER than self-described TECREALISTS. --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a reason why? We need specifics other than "I hate this article and will throw what I can as WP:WIKILAWYER".
 * We addressed these are all public figures, that there is significant useful sourcing for most of these claims. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We are describing this supposed philosophy as being akin to a secular religion. We would likely avoid branding anyone with a religion that they have not chosen to identify with. The claim that it is not a pejorative is at odds with the statement in the intro that "the acronym is sometimes used to criticize a perceived belief system associated with Big Tech". It is not a term developed by holders of the belief to identify themselves, and it is hard to see that it's something we should be using to label people any more than "woke" or "TERF". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently, nearly all figures in the section have multiple sources.
 * Maybe Peter Thiel could be removed for now, as well as Ray Kurzweil. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't read the FinancialTimes article, because it is behind a paywall. Can you please provide quotes, because the association to Musk via one quote where he said he liked the Russian guy well known as a Cosmist was used as the ultimate source for Musk's connection in the first deleted article, and that alleged connection was deemed to be WAY too weak of a connection. --- Avatar317 (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * 2 of the 9 paragraphs deal with Musk in this source. The formatting gets messed up on copy paste into here.
 * Tech luminaries certainly overlap in their interests. Elon Musk, who wants to colonise Mars, has expressed sympathy for longtermist thinking and owns Neuralink, essentially a transhumanist company. Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, has backed anti-ageing technologies and has bankrolled a rival to Neuralink. Both Musk and Thiel invested in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. Like Thiel, Ray Kurzweil, the messiah of singularitarianism now employed by Google, wants to be cryogenically frozen and revived in a scientifically advanced future. Another influential figure is philosopher Nick Bostrom, a longtermist thinker. He directs Oxford university’s Future of Humanity Institute, whose funders include Musk. (Bostrom recently apologised for a historical racist email.) The institute works closely with the Centre for Effective Altruism, an Oxford-based charity. Some effective altruists have identified careers in AI safety as a smart gambit. There is, after all, no more effective way of doing good than saving our species from a robopocalypse.""" Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe this is an excerpt from a longer post, but this does not say that these people identify with a thing called "TESCREAL", rather it is a list of seemingly unrelated factoids. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 03:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Read the article if you want.
 * "People who are very rich or very clever, or both, sometimes believe weird things. Some of these beliefs are captured in the acronym Tescreal."
 * "Repeated talk of a possible techno-apocalypse not only sets up these tech glitterati as guardians of humanity, it also implies an inevitability in the path we are taking." Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This article quotes Gebru and Torres as having called these people "Tescreal". At no point does FT claim that they are "Tescreal", or even that this is a commonly-used term (the closest it gets is to say "The label, coined by a former Google ethicist and a philosopher, is beginning to circulate online"). The part you've quoted is vague innuendo.
 * "Newspaper X said that person Y said claim Z" is not the same thing as "newspaper X said claim Z" -- it's not even close.
 * For a comparison, see the UFO stuff: there are plenty of reputable newspapers saying that David Grusch claimed he had proof of UFOs, but there are not reputable newspapers saying that there's proof of UFOs. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Including a list of specific people on an article about a pejorative political term seems to me like a quite obvious BLP violation -- would we have a list of pundits at feminazi, christofascist, SJW, et cetera, cited only to other pundits, who hate them? <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We have Big Tech, a "perjorative term" for big tech companies.
 * There are some "perjorative" terms that occur on wikipedia that have allegations that public figures are them. They fall into the pattern you suggest "doesn't happen" on here. Many of these terms are far more perjorative than TESCREALists.
 * Democrat in Name Only is a similarly "perjorative term" that alleged Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson as DINOs in the 200s.
 * Republican_in_Name_Only alleges Brian Kemp and others.
 * Cuckservative is thrown at Jeb Bush and John Mccain
 * If we keep it in Wikivoice, and they are WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there are multiple opinions alleging them as such, we should include it with the appropriate WP:WIKIVOICE Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd also argue that "feminazi", etc. are internet jargon slurs used to demean. TESCREAL is originated by well published scientists and philosophers, i.e. Timnit Gebru, and Emile P Torres. Its roots are clearly scholarly and scholarly criticism of philosophies is generally not a perjorative political term right now.
 * If you find a reliable source arguing otherwise (I've seen the rando medium post arguing TESCREAL is a conspiracy, its WP:SPS), then we should consider WP:BLP. It has no current perjorative connotation as it has not entered mainstream discourse, though it is useful enough of an organizing idea that multiple folks are now using it to describe current veins of thought regarding some AI leaders/philosophers. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * In general, it is clearly not the case that everything that comes out of the mouth of a credentialed scholar is a neutral, scientific claim based on pure apolitical reason. For example, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek are both very prestigious psychologists and university professors, who both hold all sorts of esteemed doctorates and professorships. However, obviously, neither of them are speaking as neutral scholars in magazine interviews about who's ruining society these days.
 * I assume you mean this Medium article written by James Hughes, who is a sociologist and a research fellow at UMass Boston’s Center for Applied Ethics. I am not a huge fan of the academic micturation contest framing in the first place, but I don't think there is really a credible basis to say that Emile Torres is a "well-published philosopher" and this guy is a "rando". <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8"><b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>×<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>🗯️</b> 00:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Emile P Torres and Timnit Gebru are not in the slight neutral, nor is James Hughes. And I'd argue that science often is not neutral and is often necessarily political. (see Climate Change or the "Do artifacts have politics?" paper)
 * Apologies for suggesting that James Hughes is a nobody, I mean to say that he needs to publish in a source that can stand up. The article had previously been deleted for lack of WP:RELIABLE sources, and I took great pains to try to include all the reliable sources I could. I think including criticism of the term, especially while its new and highly fluid in every source I find, could improve the article more.
 * I think this topic is highly political, and like any highly political topic, there are folks who use the most hyperbolic comments on both sides, whether characterizing everyone who is associated with even a single one of the movements as part of a larger eugenics conspiracy (bit of a stretch) or that TESCREAL is a slur invented by the left (also bit of a stretch).
 * Currently, my opinion is its just an academic term for a phenomena of weird ideologies in Silicon Valley.
 * We should use WP:OPINION on highly political topics. (I note that the Transhumanism article uses this significantly, as do many contemporary philosophy articles on Wikipedia). We should not consider deleting large portions of information stated in WP:OPINION just because we consider the politics to be particularly obnoxious (even possibly to ourselves as editors) or to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE that the politics criticizes.
 * The plethora of opinion pieces, commentaries, scientific articles, and (Some) straight news pieces suggest that this political term has some notability. And that many of these sources suggest and argue that Elon Musk and others are examples suggests we should include them in a list of alleged "Tescrealists", as long as we use WP:OPINION. Alleging that Elon Musk and others participate in weird ideologies that happens to be described by some as TESCREAL is not something that should be contentious to point out either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently, my opinion is its just an academic term for a phenomena of weird ideologies in Silicon Valley.
 * We should use WP:OPINION on highly political topics. (I note that the Transhumanism article uses this significantly, as do many contemporary philosophy articles on Wikipedia). We should not consider deleting large portions of information stated in WP:OPINION just because we consider the politics to be particularly obnoxious (even possibly to ourselves as editors) or to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE that the politics criticizes.
 * The plethora of opinion pieces, commentaries, scientific articles, and (Some) straight news pieces suggest that this political term has some notability. And that many of these sources suggest and argue that Elon Musk and others are examples suggests we should include them in a list of alleged "Tescrealists", as long as we use WP:OPINION. Alleging that Elon Musk and others participate in weird ideologies that happens to be described by some as TESCREAL is not something that should be contentious to point out either. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Ella Thomas
Page is currently being targeted with protracted effort to delete relevant and current as well as cited information.

Even citation links to verified information is being removed. Married with child is indisputable based on links that were erased. Average google search of interviews would verify articles and podcasts in actresses on voice.

Seeems to be an attempt to denounce her nationality as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erifanz (talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * courtesy link: Ella Thomas Say ocean again (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Have you considered starting a discussion at Talk:Ella Thomas, which is the first place to discuss issues with that article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm been trying to figure how to go about starting a discussion which is why I was asking for assistance. Erifanz (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Erifanz, you seem to be saying that you are Ella Thomas. Is that correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No... I am her cousin Rusa. I manage the page with her sister. I never had an issue before so am confused why this started and why I'm being blocked when I asked for help. Please advise. Erifanz (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Erifanz Take the time to read
 * WP:COI
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:OWN and
 * An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing carefully.
 * This issue probably started because one or more Wikipedians noticed that the article didn't look like a WP:BLP should (WP has a lot of stuff like that, people only notice what they notice). That often happens when friends and relatives edit WP-articles about people, since they tend to do so from a "This person is AWESOME" perspective, whether they mean to or not. The purpose of a WP-article about Ella Thomas is to be a summary of independent WP:RS about Ella Thomas. Some WP:ABOUTSELF allowed, but still needs citing. Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful as a source, especially for a WP:BLP. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being so kind and taking the time to clarify.
 * I'm still confused because I read through guidelines and there is no subjective context to her page. It's her early life, present life and catalog of work. When I look at similar pages of actresses... I followed the format almost identically. Even other actresses and actors repped at the agency have the same format.
 * I understand that we don't own the page and appreciate the format correction. I also don't understand why an interview with her and her husband doesn't count as a citation.
 * Again thank you for your patience with my questions. Erifanz (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Are we talking about ? If so, while it's possible that they say "yeah, we are married etc" somewhere in that 70 min podcast, the text on that page doesn't make that clear at all. So for an editor who looks at that cited page, it doesn't seem to say the are married or have a child together. This may be possible to improve with Template:Cite AV media, which has a parameter for time (like when in the podcast do they say this.) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * We're also very strict about copyright around here. At least when we notice we should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no copyright infringement... I literally manage her website. Those images are on my computer as press files for her. They are our images. Even the old one and the image you questioned are being used everywhere even by her modeling agency. The shots were done for PR. (I understand why it's a conflict of interest on the other issues of editing but that would cause half of the actors and actresses pages to be blocked.) Can you at least please reinstate the new image.  Erifanz (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you need to prove that on Commons, guidance in the "possible copyright violation" template at . The default assumption on WP and Commons for pics like these is that the copyright holder is the photographer. Note also, that when you upload a pic the way you did, you stated that the picture was free for anyone to use commercially, which is fine if that's what you want. More at A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not when it's a paid shoot by the actress for PR and website... she retains rights tto the image for publicity. Thank you again for all your answers. I've learned a great deal tonight. Erifanz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * This is what you need to prove on Commons. Follow the guidance there. User:Erifanz saying this is so is not enough. And again, you uploaded the pic as "under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." That means free for commercial use. With attribution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help... I think I'm giving up and handing this off to someone else. Erifanz (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Josef Sorett
Sorett is a dean at Columbia College who has recently been involved in some controversy around text messages for which three other deans were placed on leave. Sorett himself was not placed on leave, nor did he send any of the texts at issue, though he allegedly replied "lmao" to some of them (according to the Washington Free Beacon, but reprinted in higher-quality sources including the New York Times). Can we get some outside opinions on whether this controversy ought to be described on the biographical article about him? Discussion here: Talk:Josef Sorett. Courtesy ping to Jjazz76. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Sheng Thao
There are frequent edits to this article on a living person, a politician with a "divisive" stance and is covered in international news. Many of the edits in my opinion do not provide a balanced narrative and do not introduce a neutral point of view. Asking for help to moderate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.98.6 (talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Greetings. The word you quoted does not presently appear in the live version of the article. Also, the article talk page is a live and active forum where you can bring such concerns. This forum is for when talk page discussions fail to produce a consensus. Please present your concerns at the active talk page. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

ANI thread with some BLP implications


Noting that people experienced with BLPs might want to take a look at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. I'm not sure what to do so input from others is welcome. Thanks. Clovermoss 🍀 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)


 * If it wasn't for her election to the European Parliament I'd be nominating the article for deletion per WP:BLP1E. Seems like a bit of an attack piece and needs some copyediting. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I semi-protected the article for three months. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLPPRIMARY issue on John Leguizamo article
John Leguizamo appeared on a genealogy show called Finding Your Roots in 2022. Within a day of the airing,  this edit changed the widely reported birth date, his name at birth, and a few other details related to his family based on the findings of the show. There seems to be several issues with this, as the details are shown for two brief seconds in a visual overview of a family tree and other editors have considered it 'confirmation of his actual birthdate'. Taking one conflicting date as fact when there are multiple RS pointing to a different date seems to be ignoring WP:DOB. This also draws into question if WP:BLPPRIMARY comes into play and how it should be applied with a brief 'blink-and-you-will-miss-it!' showing of primary details. Since the name listed in the show also is not reported elsewhere, it adds further conflict to how to report on that since it is based on a primary source. since you were the person who originally initiated the WP:DOB RfC regarding conflicting dates of birth, I wanted to request your opinion for cases like this in the future where multiple sources point to one year, and a solitary source points to another.

I have included the references I could find regarding his year of birth, including his About Me bio from his book. I also was unsure of if Copyright.gov is a reliable source since I know we consider the Library Of Congress reliable for years of birth, or have in the past, but I included it as well for the year of birth.

| Copyright Office authorship query, "Leguizamo, John, 1964-"

| Current biography yearbook (1998), page 368 "Leguizamo, John - July 22, 1964"

| MacMillan Profiles Latino Americans (1999), page 197 "John Leguizamo, July 22, 1964"

Santa Ana Orange County Register Sunday Newspaper Archives July 25, 1999 Page 243 "Recalled John Leguizamo, 35"

| The Oxford encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States (2005), page 539 "Leguizamo was born in Bogata, Colombia, on July 22, 1964"

| Latino Wisdom (2006), page 47 "Born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964, Leguizamo"

| Who : a directory of prominent people, 2nd Ed (2007), page 266 "Leguizamo, John (1964-)"

| The works of John Leguizamo (2008), page 3 "Was born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964" (About the author page from his book)

| Time Almanac 2009, page 56 "Leguizamo ( 22 Jul 1964)"

| Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2010, page 56 "John Leguizamo, 22 July, 1964"

| CNN, Oct 3, 2014 "50 people turning 50 in 2014 — John Leguizamo had a milestone birthday on July 22 as he celebrated turning 50."

| InterviewMagazine, May 31, 2016 "Now, at age 51, Leguizamo"

| Vogue, Apr 6, 2017 "The 52-year-old actor was born in Colombia,"

| GQ, Feb 28, 2018 "Yeah, something's definitely different about John Leguizamo. He thinks it might come down to his age—he's 53 now, over half a century"

| NBC News, Apr 13, 2023 "Leguizamo, 62, has enjoyed"

Awshort (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * This should be reverted to the date in the majority of sources you've supplied and make a note about the discrepancy. Say ocean again (talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. I would agree with in saying that we should probably include it as a footnote but list the predominantly reported one. The case that spawned the DOB RfC was a bit unique in that literally no reliable sources can/could agree for some reason on Taylor Lorenz's age to the level that we have to include a 3 year gap as they all contradict each other...that doesn't happen very often, I would hope. -- The SandDoctor  Talk 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Steve Darling
Steve Darling has said "During his national campaign, he gained recognition when local Conservative Party campaigners falsely accused him of pretending to be blind for political gain, according to the charity Devon in Sight." The charity has no evidence that this happened. It seems to have been a political stunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.13.54 (talk) 10:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Article now says "... allegedly falsely accused him..." which is supported by a Guardian article. I don't see an ongoing BLP issue here Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Frank Warren
The Section that I have removed regarding the shooting at a weigh-in involving Daniel Kinahan is entirely inaccurate as it alleges Frank Warren as a co-promoter. In truth, his business was a broadcaster of the event via Boxnation with the event promoted by MGM.

As the fight poster shows: Fight Poster The event was an MGM event and not co-promoted by Mr. Warren but only associated. Mr. Warren had no involvement in the event or present at the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfen98 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Stfen98 Presumably you mean Frank Warren (promoter). Try starting a discussion with @ADifferentMan, who reverted you, at Talk:Frank Warren (promoter). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Max Volume
There is a lot of unreferenced content in this article, added by a user with a username similar to the article title. Walsh90210 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed a bunch of the unsourced content and added some page tags. Still a lot of unsourced information. I'm not sure if this article subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. – notwally (talk) 02:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've posted some potential sources on the article's talk page. Schazjmd   (talk)  14:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Neil Gaiman
This discussion may be of interest to those who hang out at this noticeboard. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)