Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Click here to post a question to the Biographies of living persons noticeboard

Concern About BLP Alex Epstein (American writer)
There are a group of editors leveraging their knowledge of Wikipedia editing that continuously add highly controversial statements in the lead of Alex Epstein's Wikipedia page, which was formerly resolved a year ago discussion on 'Climate Denier' phrasing . The edit is solely based on single purpose articles various pieces that do not do any secondary sourcing. The daily maverick is not a wikipedia reliable source and the rolling stone article is bascially top 5 climate deniers list that reads like an SEO top ten blog post.

While Slate is considered a reliable source, there are many other reliable sources that negate this piece. So yes there are "Sources" but most if not all of the sources use no secondary sources. These are amounting to Google search preferences.

This has priorly been resolved as Undue weight given to the Biography of a living person. It also can not be seen as a "Fringe" theory as that usually entails self published works; Alex Epstein's works have been published by one of the Big Five in publishing, being Penguin books. Outsellers (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Slate is only one of many reliable sources in the article that covers Epstein's climate change denialism. Also (1) please answer the question about what relationship you have to Epstein, since the majority of your edits are about him, and (2) be careful using the word defamatory before reading WP:NLT. Black Kite (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The dailymaverick is a reliable source? No "all he is known for" would depend on your "reliable source" Outsellers (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that, but The Guardian certainly is. Is this simply semantics, though?  There is little doubt that Epstein rejects the scientific consensus on global warning, so does it matter how you phrase that?  I removed "all he is known for" because I read the paragraph about his views on third-world countries. Black Kite (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is it possible there are other things that you don't know? And that the highly controversial nature of this should use all reliable sources as in reflected in Wikipedia's policies? Outsellers (talk) 18:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, his actual views aren't in doubt, it's simply a way of how they're described. Would you be happy if he was simply described as a "someone who disagrees with the scientific consensus on global warming"? Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I bet, if you look hard enough, you can see this hole left here. Isolation of indigency (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Purpose of BLPN
The noticeboard header says. Is that still an accurate description of how it's used, or how we want it to be used? I often see it used for challenging questions about how the BLP policy should be applied. Not all such cases involve any disruptive editing, let alone long-term disruption. Can we reword the header? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Present your proposed re-write & we shall review it :) GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm all for it. I think anyone with a BLP question should feel free to come ask. Plus, if there are BLP vios, I don't think it prudent to wait for an extended period to get help with them. Some should be addressed immediately. Zaereth (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Probably something more along the lines of raise concerns regarding the application of the BLP policy to content or something less clunky along those lines. Since the header is clearly at odds with how the board is used in practice I think a bold change is fine, if someone reverts it we can discuss, or at least that's how things usually work. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I like FFF's idea and the IP's suggested text as a first draft. As a complete sentence, I'd suggest: Generalrelative (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We probably should add that editors are encouraged first to seek discussion on the appropriate talk page and then only raise the issue here if that fails to resolve matters. — M asem (t) 20:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Perhaps in a follow-up sentence though? I'll suggest: Generalrelative (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, probably will end up tweaked, but good starting point. 184.152.68.190 (talk) 00:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I really think the purpose of this noticeboard is any dispute that could reasonably be construed to involve BLP policy. I think the over an extended period is extraneous and contrary to how this board is used in practice. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I usually find myself in agreement with you, but in this case I see it as being a bit more broad than that. First, I'll state that I have a bias here. I can't stand bureaucracy, so I never like to to send people to another board if it's a simple question I can answer here. But we get a lot of newbies and non-Wikipedians come here simply because they see a problem but either aren't sure what to do about it or simply aren't bold enough to make the change themselves. (Back when I was an IP, I doubt I ever would have attempted to edit an article myself, until I was encouraged to do so by a friendly editor.) Either way, some of these vios are pretty egregious and need to be dealt with swiftly, so I think at the risk of cluttering the page I think we should encourage anyone to bring BLP questions or concerns here. Sort of along the lines of erring on the side of caution. Of course, not everything about a bio falls under BLP policy, and BLP, the policy, is what this noticeboard is primarily for. Zaereth (talk) 22:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think I misspoke, when I said "dispute" I meant any reasonable concern about a BLP article or anything related to a living person. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Too broad, I think. Look at this current topic where a campaign staffer is complaining about how after a week not enough promotional content was added to his client's page. That's not a legitimate BLPN issue, is it? How about for which is more inclusive of the current "disruptive editing in biographies of living people (BLPs) over an extended period"?  BBQ  boffingrill me 04:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly okay with people bringing stuff like that here, since it means more experienced editors will be aware of the attempted promotion. And I do think it's valid for someone to raise an issue here because they're genuinely curious *whether* a given piece of content violates BLP policy. Langauge like "reporting and discussing violations" presupposes the outcome, and makes this seem more like a disciplinary board, when that's not at all consistent with how the community uses it. Generalrelative (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm relatively new here so I don't know the history (but would like to, and will as time permits, educate myself). But will the volume of "people bringing stuff like that here" exceed the capacity of "experienced editors" willing to deal with all matters BLP? Maybe try incremental steps rather than open the floodgates and then try to close them later? BBQ  boffingrill me 05:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been participating on this board for the last 16 years, and I would say no. The floodgates have long been open, because people rarely pay attention to the stuff written at the top. The way this board has always been used has never been limited to disputes and violations alone. My comments above only list a few examples. There aren't enough of us to go out patrolling all BLPs, so anytime people can bring them here they can get the attention they deserve. Many times people aren't aware of what constitutes a violation and need guidance. Others come with questions about how the policy applies to certain specific situations. Many come with problems that are actually NPOV or RS issues, yet they don't really know that. And some come with things that are completely irrelevant to BLP policy altogether, like the example you mentioned, yet careful eyes are usually drawn to those articles and violations found that the OP didn't even know about. The policy is too important to ward all these people away simply because it clutters the page a little. That policy has undergone a lot major improvements over the years since Sarah first had the foresight to create it, mostly based upon discussion held right here. The suggested changes just better fit how this board has always been used. Zaereth (talk) 06:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Follow-Up Question About DRN and BLPN
I just saw this thread, and maybe I have been mistaken, or maybe I have been anticipating a change in the wording of the header. At the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I sometimes get a dispute that centers around a biography of a living person, and have sometimes recommended that BLPN would be a better forum. There are currently two such disputes that have been filed at DRN. (I don't think that I have seen two such disputes at once in the past.) They are currently Dispute_resolution_noticeboard and Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. I am aware that Nex Benedict is not a living person, but I think that Nex is subject to the biographies of living persons policy as someone who has recently died and whose death is controversial. It has been my thinking that the volunteers at this noticeboard may be more knowledgeable about the BLP policy than the volunteers at DRN. So I will ask the same question as was asked a few weeks ago, which is whether the header to this noticeboard should be revised. If it is revised, I may have been right in my referrals. If the purpose of this noticeboard is more limited, I may have been mistaken. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It has been used to raise any issue about BLP application for as long as I've been watching, like the other similarly named noticeboards. Any sort of question or dispute about those polices can be brought to the boards imo. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:DIYeditor. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I agree that if it's BLP related, certainly people can bring their disputes here as well as any other question that relates to the policy. This board, however, is quite a bit different from DRN in that it's not so much about resolving disputes as it is in the application and enforcement of the policy, so they may not get the same sort of help in resolving the dispute as they would at DRN.


 * For example, many disputes are the result of flawed logic, and often one of the quickest ways to end the dispute is not necessarily coming up with a compromise (which is what DRN is more about) but in getting people to see that their logic is indeed flawed. In the Kennedy article, for example, the dispute seems to be about adding a see-also section to highlight some controversy, but this idea is based on the flawed premise that it will highlight the alleged controversies. It's sort of a mind projection fallacy where the user assumes the reader has the same background info they do and therefore will comprehend the see-also section in the way they intended. Which, of course, the average reader more than likely knows nothing about it and will not just put two and two together, thus simply adding some ambiguous links accomplishes nothing. If both sides saw this, then it really shouldn't matter so much to either. Ignoring this flawed premise, and in defense of their respective goals, the two users then began engaging in a back and forth of circular reasoning, in which their arguments end with what they begin, and thus they get nowhere but around and around in circles.


 * Then there's articles like Benedict one. This and the recent Where is Kate? article highlight the need for Wikipedia to have more information on how to actually write an encyclopedic article. I would say it reads like a newspaper, but it's not even that. It reads like a collage of bits and pieces taken from newspapers but assembled into a narrative style. Narrative style is how most fiction is written, with the exception being literary journalism such as Ken Burns documentaries and such. It's not an encyclopedia article at all but a long, drawn-out story complete with settings, characters, emotions, and plot.


 * Non-fiction is almost always done in expository style, and people who are going to work on an encyclopedia should really understand what that means. Everything from newspapers to books are written in different forms of expository style. Encyclopedic writing in specific is done in "expository summary style", which differentiates it from news and books. A lot of of people, even long-time editors, are not even aware of any of this. We really need more/some/any info in the policies and guidelines about how exactly that is done, as part of the WP:Manual of style. I think that would help immensely in minimizing such disputes, and also on these narrative articles based on recent news events (articles which will take a lot of time and work to clean up later.) Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, User:Zaereth - I infer that you are saying that the Kennedy issue is the sort that can be dealt with at least as well at BLPN as at DRN. There are multiple issues with the Nex Benedict article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Yes, I'm saying both, but also exploring different solutions to resolve such disputes. I'm not inferring that anyone is stupid or anything, but in that we all sometimes become too involved in our own logic to see the problem objectively and need an outsider to take a look with a fresh viewpoint. For example, encyclopedic style is more about minimizing details and focusing on the broader, overall topic, ie: the forest rather than each individual tree. It's necessary to read a source, comprehend its entire meaning, and then summarize that meaning in the fewest words possible. The shorter, the better, as long as it doesn't mean sacrificing precision. Many of these disputes and even BLP violations are the result of focusing too much on the individual "trees" and ignoring the "forest". Cherrypicking bits and pieces of the sources rather than summarizing the gist of the source as a whole. When people read an article like the Benedict one, they know right away that something is off, even though they might not consciously know what it is. Eventually, when the fervor dies down, people invariably show up and slowly turn it from one that reads like a fiction story and into an encyclopedia article, but a lot of trouble and disputes could be avoided by simply writing in the correct style in the first place.


 * Problem is (as hard as it is to believe) Wikipedia has absolutely nothing about what makes a style encyclopedic and how that compares to other styles, like narrative, persuasive, technical, journalistic, or even a resume, so there's nothing to use as a guide or even a reference to point at in a dispute... other than comparing it to a well-written article. Or reading some books about the subject. Zaereth (talk) 01:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Link to defamatory information
I am trying to figure out if I need to - and how to - link information that is claiming that someone should be fired from their ethnicity-based position because they are not a citizen of a Native American reservation (i.e., it's all about the definition of "Native American"), which I have drafted Draft:Native American definition. Should I move that info? How do I do that so that no one sees where I put it from my contributions? Thanks! –CaroleHenson (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)


 * I am basing this on the type of language in the newspaper article, the non-profit, and in other newspaper articles about this issue. I don't mean to infer that I mean Wikipedia editors are trying to do that. Sorry, I have not been well and I am exhausted.–CaroleHenson (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Bruno Brandão
On the English Transparency International e.V. wiki talk page I have flagged unverified claims and questionable allegations of serious misconduct against a living person. I am now writing here, as unfortunately no review of this section has happened during the last months, and I am hoping that someone from this Wiki Project has the interest and the resources to take a look at it.

Kind regards Transparency 24 (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Risk of drawing attention to defamatory material
The instructions for this noticeboard say:

"Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem."

But the instructions on Requests_for_oversight say:

"You must never draw attention to suppressible material, or any links to suppressible material on Wikipedia or any public venue."

It would be nice if the instructions here included some guidance on when to post on the public noticeboard, when to request revision deletion (RevDel) privately from an admin, and when to request suppression from the Oversight team. Jruderman (talk) 02:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)