Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

This article has an inconsistent use of pronouns to describe either the performer or the character being portrayed, depending on the section being read.

The current version of this article has female pronouns in the introductory text and male pronouns in the biography section. It is unclear from initial reading which gendered pronoun should be used, or whether multiple pronouns should apply to this person and used interchangeably.

If this is an example of kayfabe, the article may need to be rewritten to provide greater clarity as the title currently states "performer" but the biography section may be referencing a persona, which can cause confusion.

Furthermore, the edit history for this article shows a repeated altering of the gender/pronouns for this article by third parties, but only in certain sections and which are often quickly reverted - further adding to the confusion. See the Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) history section for details.

This is not a request for deletion, but someone with greater knowledge of this person may need to provide accurate, up-to-date information to prevent repeated edits by overzealous users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.83.25 (talk • contribs) 15:43, August 17, 2024 (UTC)

A source was added to Screams Without Words with insinuations that several witnesses provided false testimony. The source, Yes! (U.S. magazine), hasn't been discussed on RSN yet AFAIK. There are no red flags in terms of reliability, though there is a transparent agenda, in the magazine and especially the (freelance) author of the particular piece. Could an uninvolved editor weigh in on discussion of whether this is okay for BLP? — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:12, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Flagging this again before auto-archived. There is no consensus at RSN or the article talk page as to reliability of this source, used a couple of times in relation to truthfulness of witnesses to alleged sexual crimes. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I could do with a more experienced and diplomatic pair of eyes on Talk:Adam Britton. I feel like I'm not communicating well. The dispute revolves around how much detail to include on his wife's actions following his high-profile convictions, and how to frame that detail if indeed it is to be included. Thanks. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 21:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The wording was sensational, which isn't terribly surprising when you check the supporting source and see that all its substantive content was attributed to the Daily Mail. I've removed it again. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I feel silly having not noticed that, somehow. Thanks for removing it, we shouldn't (obviously) be sourcing BLP stuff to that. Or anything else. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Had another editor try to add it today (in good faith, might I add). I undid that, pointed them to talk, and removed the wife's name entirely per WP:BLPNAME. Still a little concerned about the attention this aspect is getting, but I may be grumbling into the void here: Not sure there's much further to be done. 78.149.135.163 (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is a very long and drawn out contentious discussion on this matter, and has been a very slow moving edit war. In the meantime, until there is an RfC I don't see why such material should be restored per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. I'm pretty much willing to take this to WP:ANEW, but wanted to see if we can't get an admin to intervene in the meantime.

• Removal diff -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242551121
• Restoration ignoring WP:ONUS -- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JD_Vance&diff=prev&oldid=1242558302

I am unable to find any RfC on this matter where consensus was affirmed, and WP:BLPRESTORE is pretty clear on this matter, and per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM I find perennial news sources covering what amounts to WP:GOSSIP doesn't quite meet the "high-quality" bar required for BLPs. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, its gossip that isn't particularly substantive and does not belong in an encyclopedic biography...

the hoax may be worth its own wikipedia entry maybe, but might not be worth linking into a person's biography Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll go and make an RFC. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

BLPRESTORE also says Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis. Having read the talk page discussion regarding this issue, I think the above applies. It would appear (please correct me if I'm wrong at any point) that the discussion started when the hoax was given its own section in the article. As the discussion went on, there appears there wa a loose consensus to keep the information, culminating in one editor removing the separate section and adding a version of the information to another section instead. A later editor moved this information to a different section, and there is possibly still some debate to be had about which is the right place for it.

If no attempt had been made to address concerns, you're absolutely right and BLPRESTORE would apply. But editors have worked hard to make sure that the material is added in a manner that is WP:DUE, and BLPRESTORE would appear to recognise that. If the material is simply deleted whatever happens, that doesn't give editors a fair crack at adding in in an appropriate manner. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 14:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

RFC I just started: Talk:JD_Vance#RFC:_Inclusion_of_couch_hoax Bluethricecreamman (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do not wish to be unkind, but the RFC appears to poorly formed. You have split it into survey and discussion sections, but you haven't given clear options for the survey, and your own survey vote is effectively a discussion comment. Discussion started here not even an 30 minutes prior to your creation on the RFC - almost nobody has had a chance to contribute. I wish you'd let it play out a little longer here first, then we might have been able to craft a more robust RFC proposal. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

ah... its my first one.

Should I just delete it and let someone else do it? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

ah wait... others have started replying to it... well whoops, I dont think i'm allowed to redo or edit now, right? apologies. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have looked at WP:RFC, which says The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC would normally be the person to remove the rfc tag. [Note, bold RFC is because I Wikipedia thought I was trying to actually place the tag here and I didn't know how to escape it.] There is probably still an opportunity to do that, especially if you make an edit to the talk page or the edit summary to make clear that the action is being taken so a better structured RFC can replace it. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, removed the tag, and striked out the text. I'll let someone else do it. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the content again. We err on the side of excluding contentious material, especially about a BLP, and especially if the material is shown to be a hoax. This isn't "JD Vance in popular culture" or somesuch, where there might be a good argument to include (there might even be justification for a stand-alone article at this point), but rather the main biographical article about the person, with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

with the content under a section called "public reaction" as though it has anything to do with the person himself. Did you read the paragraph you removed? —Locke Cole • t • c 16:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then you know your statement I quoted is false, yes? —Locke Cole • t • c 19:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what you're getting at, but anyone interested can just take a look at the version before I reverted and confirm that it was under a "public reactions" section, a subsection of the VP campaign. It isn't part of "in popular culture" or the like but part of the main biography as though the hoax has anything to do with a public reaction to Vance-as-VP-candidate. It's either a hoax or a reaction to a hoax, not to Vance. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The sources do seem to present it as largely a reaction to Vance's image (sexually repressed, weird, oversharer), they seem to suggest that the reason it went so viral is that it was really believable even if unveracious... That is it seemed like it could be true, even though its not. The longer I see this go on the more I think that perhaps it really is best handled on a stand-alone page with only a short blurb+link here about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If it's false, why include it? Springee (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

What would be the basis for exluding hoaxes? Notability is entirely independent of the truth, John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories gets coverage at John F. Kennedy whether there is any underlying truth to the theories or not. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because unlike the weird couch thing people are still talking about assassination conspiracy theories 50 years later. If people are still talking about Vance humping a couch in 50 years then I guess we'll have an article about it? Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We have more than enough coverage, you can't make a competent good faith argument to exclude based on a lack of coverage... Which is why an argument is being made to exclude it on the grounds that it is false. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The threshold for inclusion of facts/information is not "notability" but WP:DUE which is a lower bar indeed. "Notability" is a concept which applies to inclusion of an entire article or topic, and answers the question of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion here. DUE governs the stuff y'all include in articles; if a hoax (or any other fact) isn't adequately documented/covered by RS then it's excluded, but that's distinct from the notability of a subject. Any facts are eligible for inclusion, even if they fail to meet a "notability" bar, as long as they don't exceed WP:UNDUE. Got it, Horsey?

With all that being said, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT apply here, and it's a freakin' tempest in a teapot, so pls delete. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:A630:BA40:F8C:EF24 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Notability in the colloquial sense... Which is DUEWEIGHT (and note that on an academic level notability the term of art is just the application of due weight to the topics themselves). Even giving you the benefit of the doubt I fail to see your point though, DUEWEIGHT is no more dependent on the underlying veracity of the topic than N is. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, it is true that LL Cool J has made love with a sofa, so there's truth; merely misattributed I suppose. 2600:8800:1E96:E900:7135:9DE6:EA27:BF8D (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

We don't seem to have a Misinformation in the 2024 United States presidential election. Perhaps instead of fighting over whether this information belongs in a BLP, someone should create that and include it there? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 22:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is actually not a bad idea, 2024 United States presidential election could just have it's own "Misinformation" section for now and if needed, split off from there. I'm still opposed to having the hoax linked to Vance's BLP, similarly to the horse semen hoax for Walz, or whatever weird stuff comes up in this election season. Kcmastrpc (talk) 02:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

How is that similar? They appear to have gotten vastly different levels of coverage. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does Wikipedia have enough disk space for all the misinfo? O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The couch hoax is already covered in Hillbilly Elegy, and WP:Summary Style says only the “most important” parts of Hillbilly Elegy should be repeated in the main Vance BLP, so it seems pretty clear that this contentious hoax should not be in the main Vance BLP. (This rumor about Vance is similar to the lurid rumor about Trump and prostitutes in Moscow). Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you explain what is contentious about the hoax? Everyone seems to agree that this is a hoax/joke, there is no contention otherwise unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

When there are jokes at someone’s expense, it undermines them, and causes arguments about whether it’s an appropriate way to conduct a presidential election. We’re having an argument about that right now, for example. VP Harris tweeted, “JD Vance does not couch his hatred for women”, to keep this disgusting lie front and center, and to diminish his stature. If Vance starts telling jokes about Harris having sex with inanimate objects, I likewise would oppose inclusion in her BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If you think we should exclude the whole thing is because you personally think it is "disgusting", you are doing original research. Cortador (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn’t suggest to put the word “disgusting” into any Wikipedia article. Anyway, Jake Tapper of CNN says the hoax/lie was “gross” which is synonymous with disgusting.[1] I support continued inclusion of this gross smear in Hillbilly Elegy. But not in the main Vance BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Its going to be covered by BLP in both places. Do you think you can tone down the rhetoric a bit? The level of anger you're bringing to this discussion is disruptive. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m not angry at you. Are you angry at me for being angry at you? Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You appear angry at the hoax, the hyperbole with which you are speaking doesn't make sense otherwise. Calling it a "disgusting lie" "gross smear" is uncivil, hoax is already strong. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don’t agree that Jake Tapper was being uncivil, and I also don’t agree that he was angry. He was just stating facts. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jake Tapper is not a wikipedia editor to the best of my knowledge... If he was and he said the same sort of stuff he says on TV he would most certainly cross the civility line repeatly in only an hour. Just call it a hoax, no need to go the extra mile into obvious non-objectivity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't answer the question, what is contentious about the hoax? Being at someones expense doesn't make it contentious, being used to diminish someone's stature doesn't make it contentious... Only there being an actual contention does that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’ve answered as best I could. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your answer appears to be that it isn't contentious as wikipedia means the term (multiple sides to the issue). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I never suggested it’s not contentious. I explained the exact opposite above. Some people think it was a gross smear, others think it was interesting and humorous. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Anythingyouwant, just leave it be--no further responses to this needling are necessary. User:Rhododendrites, thank you for the cleanup. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gladly. 😊 Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Anythingyouwant You haven't answered this at all. You appear to find the hoax offensive on some level, which doesn't make it contentious. It would be contentious if RS reported on this in a detrimental way, which isn't the case. There's virtually no disagreement among RS that someone created the hoax, it was debunked, and there was fallout for Vance (mainly in the form of public mockery). Cortador (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

User:gregoriosev reverts anyone who removes his assertion without direct citations that Pablo Marcal, a candidate in the Mayoral Race in Sao Paulo, Brazil. It seems he is willing to engage in an edit war. I have not reverted his edit yet, as it could possibly implicate me for edit warring as well (despite exception #7 to the edit war rules). I will note that Marcal was convicted of a financial scam in 2010, as is also mentioned in the article, however his sentence was annulled. Therefore, it can be considered libelous to call him a scammer in the title sentence of the article. The Portuguese wikipedia version of the article does not list him as a scammer. I also request that this page be protected from users with less than 500 edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamjamguy (talk • contribs) 18:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I removed the contentious label from the lead sentence per BLP. As for the rest of the article, it looks like editors are copying over the "bad stuff" about Marcal from the Portuguese article, which there is quite a bit of, while leaving out the rest. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

Similar to this the other day: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Luis_Elizondo_labeled_a_"conspiracy_theorist"_repeatedly_without_citation,_page_locked, a user on Garry Nolan is now doing the same thing, repeatedly assigning the text "conspiracy theorist" to the article of this doctor. This has now spread to Google search results for this living person.

Edit 1:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.179.35.181
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Nolan&diff=1242359083&oldid=1241922071

Edit 2:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:245:8201:9100:ECBC:D50B:767B:E791
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garry_Nolan&diff=next&oldid=1242905728

Similar behavior from anonymous on Luis Elizondo:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:B023:15:A31E:5061:2FDA:8471:5900
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Luis_Elizondo&diff=prev&oldid=1241987543

Can we please get Garry Nolan protected? Thank you. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's been temporarily protected, and a discussion has been opened on the talk page about it. Isaidnoway (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Sean Ludwick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Following several attempts by 69.123.211.73 to remove substantial portions of the article, a new account, PamelaHarrLud, appeared at the help desk claiming to be Pamela Harrison Ludwick. PamelaHarrLud says that she is no longer married to Sean Ludwick. According to the sources used in the article, Sean Ludwick is married to Pamela Harrison Ludwick.

I reverted an edit by zzuuzz removing Pamela Harrison Ludwick from the infobox and changing "Ludwick is married to" to "Ludwick married" not because I am unsympathetic to PamelaHarrLud's claim, but because we haven't yet established if PamelaHarrLud really is Pamela Harrison Ludwick or if the couple is divorced. I asked Zzuzz to start a discussion on the talk page but instead they reverted me with an edit summary of "no, BLP is policy; get it right and relevant, or choose not to".

Is this a BLP issue? I'm sure this isn't the first time this has happened, how is it usually dealt with? Is it customary to remove spouses from the infobox in the event of a divorce? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

See WP:BLPNAME. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through matrimony. Private individuals have a right to retain their privacy. The general practice is to not name spouses, children, family or friends unless they themselves are notable enough to have their own articles. To the average reader, the name means nothing unless there is an article we can link to; it's just a name without a face, so removing it or replacing with a generic descriptor does not alter the reader's understanding of the subject. But to the private individual it is often a very big deal and we usually respect their right to remain private. In this case, she never should have been named at all, so removing it was the right thing to do. Zaereth (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank YOU ! PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also from this 2015 source[2] that was in the article, "A number of Hansen’s relatives and friends attended the hearing. So did Ludwick’s wife, Pamela Ludwick. The two are apparently still together even though she initiated divorce proceedings last year." The source also discusses the subject beating his girlfriend (another woman). I wonder why the wife doesn't want to be associated with him anymore. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article you reference is from 2015 and I became officially divorced in 2022. Check court records please. I am remarried and could not get remarried without getting divorced.

Thank you. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 23:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but per WP:BLPPRIMARY we do not use court records. In this case there is no need to anyhow. Your name should have never been in the article in the first place, so hopefully simply removing it should resolve any issue you have. Zaereth (talk) 23:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I can understand you challenging the removal Counterfeit Purses, I think though that in this case the wife's name and the children's details don't add anything to the article. Removing them isn't going to make any difference to the article. Knitsey (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank You for your consideration and understanding,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This does not require a complaint; we should generally be cautious particularly in associating an unnotable name of a living person with negative events, of which there are plenty in the article. The name of unnotable people does not add useful information. I have removed the name from the article body. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so very much for your attention and understanding.

Kindly,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@NatGertler Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that Ludwick's wife's name necessarily needs to be included in the article, but I am not sure that she is not relevant to the overall case. One of the sources says Records show that on September 9, 2015, just 10 days after the crash, his Brick Kiln Road property, as well as his townhouse on Sutton Place, were put into the names of limited liability corporations. I assume this was intended to shield the properties from future lawsuits. The source continues His wife, Pamela Harrison Ludwick, sold the Sutton Place townhouse for $5.6 million in August 2021, records show.

I will go along with whatever consensus forms here, but it seems like this decision has been made on "vibes" rather than following any kind of process. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 02:59, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nothing seems to be based on "vibes". If the process is to "be cautious particularly in associating an unnamable name of a living person with negative events (of which there are plenty in the article). The name of unnotable people does not add useful information."

Why is it relevant that the house was sold in August 2021, to his case ? His civil suit was settled many years before house was sold. None of the information is relevant and all it does is compromise the unnotable person, who is myself. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@PamelaHarrLud My comment was not directed at you. We have no way of knowing if you are who you say you are or if what you are saying about a divorce is correct. It would be nice if these cases were dealt with consistently instead of an ad hoc fumbling. In this case, you will likely get what you want, but not because we followed any kind of process designed to help you (or to help us to help you). That was what I meant by "vibes".

Can I ask why you were removing material about your ex-husband's crimes here, here, and here if it was just the name you wanted removed? Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:31, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does seem you have a consistent standard of practice - referred to under BLPNAME - and it seems as if it does indeed apply to my situation.

Yes, I can explain . Firstly, I had no idea there was a wikipedia page for my ex husband. My first instinct was to protect my sons, upon seeing this page. I don't want their ages in the write up; but I was informed thereafter that the ages are for Paul Hansen's sons.

The rest I attempted to remove was based on hearsay. None of what I attempted to edit was ever proven and as this is the father of my sons, who are online, I would prefer only facts be in an online encyclopedia for all to have access to, including my sons. There is much information that is misreported; based on sources that are salacious, such as Daily Mail and East Hampton Star. Not reliable news sources.

I hope this helps explain. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It does, thank you. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

But what further information does the name give us that just saying "his wife" does not? It doesn't connect to anything beyond this article. If his wife was Queen Elizabeth, that would be a different matter. It's not just "vibes", it's very much in WP:BLPNAME territory. Things like "The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects". "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject." No one has made a claim of any way in which the individual's name signifies anything needed for compete understanding. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes and to your point, Nat Gentler, his mistresses name at the time is not noted in any of the Wikipedia entry and she filed multiple suits against my ex husband. Yet, never once is her first or last name listed in Wikipedia and she is in all of the sources used to create Wikipedia entry.

Thank you again for your time,

Pam PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Excuse me, Nat Gertler. Auto spell corrected. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am fine with just using the "Ludwick's wife" as the identifier. My point was that we might not want to trim too much to avoid mention of her at all. Counterfeit Purses (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's fine to use generic descriptors. "Wife". "Kids". "Coworkers". Etc. Whatever tells the story. In most cases the person's name isn't necessary for that. For example, in the case of things like rape we will often avoid naming the victim and simply use a generic descriptor, to avoid victimizing them even more. Often times spouses don't want to be named, and special care needs to be given to children who are not even old enough to give informed consent (even if their parents don't mind naming them, the child might grow up wishing they hadn't and we have no right to take that away from them). We have much higher standards than newspapers, where info changes daily. Encyclopedias tend to last a long time so we need to be more careful. The flip-side of this is when a subject is married to a notable spouse who does have their own article, because we're not facebook and don't keep up-to-date relationship statuses, and unless their divorce is publicized they may remain married on Wikipedia forever. Non-notable people don't have to worry about that. Zaereth (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I was going to say the same thing as Nat. By removing the name and simply saying "his wife", the meaning of the sentence doesn't change at all. The name is just that, a name. Faceless. A shadow void of substance. This actually comes up here a lot, which is why we have BLPNAME. The whole point of BLP policy is to protect the rights of the people we write about. Much of it is about ethics. Unless there is some overriding need to know, for example if the story wouldn't make sense without the name, we should simply omit it. Zaereth (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am happy to know of the BLPNAME policy in order to help to protect those that have been collateral damage in these situations, in any small way possible. As you say, it is an ethical decision but equally as important to your standards, does not change the context of the information by changing the name to a reference. PamelaHarrLud (talk) 03:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure about the legal case information at Rabi Lamichhane#Legal issues#Financial Disputes and Allegations. My guess is that the statement in the article, Notably, some of these cases remain open, drawing significant attention and criticism, is not well-enough supported by the three references and the list of cases, but would like someone with a better understanding of US legal procedures to have a look. The references are a case listing on unicourt.com, a case search at Maryland Judiciary which tells me I have been blocked (?geoblocked), and a YouTube video - this one clearly not a reliable source. Thanks. Tacyarg (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I went ahead and removed the section. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY we are not allowed to use court documents to support any allegations against a living person. Youtube is also not considered a reliable source, and is also a primary source to boot. Information like this needs to come from reliable WP:Secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Zaereth. Tacyarg (talk) 20:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome. Court docs, and any info supported by them, should be removed on sight without the need for discussion, so if you ever see them feel free to do so yourself. Zaereth (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Zaereth: Please be more cautious in providing advice to other editors. It's not true that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source, and is also a primary source." YouTube is just a video hosting site. There are many publishers and authors (creators, producers, etc.) who use YouTube to host videos that we consider to be reliable and there are many videos on YouTube that are secondary or even tertiary sources. And we do not have a blanket ban on the use of court documents. They are used infrequently and are almost always treated as primary sources but there are still situations in which it is appropriate to cite them in a Wikipedia article. ElKevbo (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

However, for court documents in BLPs, there are almost nearly no situations we allow for those, so Zaereth is absolutely correct. And YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable to avoid WP:BLPSPS issues with individual contributors making controversial claims towards a BLP. Masem (t) 14:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Zaereth is not "absolutely correct" and your own statements align with my own. Your assertion that "there are almost nearly no situations we allow for [court documents in BLPs]" is obviously not the same as Zaereth's assertion that "we are not allowed to use court documents to support any allegations against a living person." And your assertion that "YouTube sources require that the video is posted directly by an organization we consider reliable" also directly refutes Zaereth's statement that "Youtube is also not considered a reliable source." You and I are in agreement that Zaereth's statements were wrong so I'm not sure why you're saying that we're not in agreement. ElKevbo (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's far better to stick to the line that YouTube/court documents are never allowed on BLP as to say they may be allowed within certain exceptions, when explaining these policies to newer users. Certainly they can be used but they need utmost care and I would not be encouraging users to consider that there are possible uses, rather than there are reasonable exceptions that require careful consideration. So I fully agree with the side that Zaereth falls on here when we talk about BLP articles. Masem (t) 15:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's very disturbing that an administrator supports providing advice to editors that flatly contradicts policy and practice. ElKevbo (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No comment on the Youtube issue. But the court documents one is fine. I mean yes, it might sometimes be okay to use court documents for stuff about living persons provided that they only an additional source and all the claims we make are also present in a reliable secondary source; but ultimately since the court document can be removed without issue since it isn't the only source, it's not really supporting anything. In many ways it's more of a cross between an external link and source. Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Let's put it a different way, is Zaereth's comment really that different from what BLPPRIMARY says "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person."? I'd say not. Yes they didn't mention the additional "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." part but they did link to BLPPRIMARY. Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also a reminder that the most recent discussion over this was fairly recent Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents. At the time I was more successful at avoiding Wikipedia than I am now so didn't participate, however I'm please to see the results IMO are not that bad. While we didn't quite get a consensus to completely ban court documents, it seems clear even in the fairly simple case of reporting the end result, something not mentioned in reliable secondary sources, of a case we do mention from reliable secondary sources there was fairly strong opposition to doing so. (Personally that's the only case I've ever contemplated relaxing BLPPRIMARY and I do wonder if the examples given didn't help.) Nil Einne (talk) 23:53, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Similar to Garry Nolan and Luis Elizondo, several dynamic ips and newer users have reinserted the contentious WP:LABEL of "conspiracy theorist" to the lead of Robby Starbuck. He has produced a documentary film that promotes conspiracy theories,[3] but Starbuck is not widely labeled as a CT by RSes. He is in the news recently for his anti-DEI activism against companies popular with conservative voters so his article has attracted drive-by edits. The article is semi-protected for 3 months, but more eyes on this would be appreciated. I also started a discussion on the talk page. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Using loaded language found in a small minority of partisan outlets violates WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:PROPORTION, WP:LABEL and probably several other PAGs. I also removed {{pseudoscience}} (which formerly, improperly, included Starbuck) per WP:BLPCAT. Using the loudest critics or most extreme opinions to describe, label, and categorize biographical subjects reeks of POV promotion, even if it's broadly considered a "good" POV by Wikipedians. --Animalparty! (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've added my own concerns on the talk page and have commented to others, I'm familiar with this individual and I can see how his recent activism would attract some editors who are keen on WP:POVPUSH (in either direction, just to be clear). Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

An edit war has arisen over User:Biohistorian15 attempting to transclude The War on Children onto the Starbuck article. I had raised WP:BLPBALANCE objections which was ignored.[4][5] Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your objection was not ignored, I directly answered it in my edit summary. If you have extremely specific ideas about what "balance" means in this context, please specify them. Biohistorian15 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Starbuck's notoriety is his social media campaigns that have made companies roll back on their DEI initiatives. Transcluding The War on Children onto his biography expands the article inappropriately giving more WP:WEIGHT to assertions sourced to WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS which AnimalParty first raised,[6] but also WP:DAILYDOT. The biography and movie pages are standalone pages for a reason. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I see. But then, there's multiple editors involved with this article and you would absolutely not have had to use three reverts within just a few hours; my edit was not vandalism. Biohistorian15 (talk) 10:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mister Organ is a negative documentary about a private individual. Previously the article stated in wikivoice that Michael Organ had 'victims' (people who had their cars clamped for illegal parking on private property) and that he had engaged in psychological warfare. I removed that for obvious reasons but I still wonder about how an article about a documentary that is basically a hit piece on a private individual can exist and comply with BLP, would it be appropriate to redact the name? Should emphasis be put on the fact that everything in the article is just David Farrier's opinion/beliefs rather than factual information? Traumnovelle (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any comment about Organ himself should be from a high-quality source, as should any comment about Farrier.

Describing the film as a "hit piece" without reliable sourcing also isn't acceptable.

The film is sufficiently notable that AFD isn't an option so your best option is to summarise what reliable sources say about the film. Daveosaurus (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

The documentary is focused on Farrier's feud with an individual and portraying him in a negative light, I'm not sure how else you would describe that. You can't describe the film without describing Organ and the sources for the film are interviews or just repeating Farrier's statements. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Maybe you just don't know what a hit piece is? Because what you just described isn't a hit piece, its just a documentary which portrays its subject more or less accurately (Tiger King isn't a hit piece because it portrays its subjects in a negative light). A hit piece is when the main point of the thing is to destroy someone for reasons unconnected to the actual piece itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought a hit piece was just something that is just negative on someone, wasn't aware of the connotations of falsehoods and lying. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Usually something called that has an ulterior motive, like animosity or greed or politics or anything really. Even if everything negative in it is true. JFHJr (㊟) 03:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I guess it wasn't the correct choice of words. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's ok. Common mistake. Think of it like this: an article on Adolph Hitler is going to naturally be all negative, yet that in itself doesn't make it a hit piece. Likewise, an article on Mother Teresa is going to be nearly all positive and that doesn't make it a hagiography. If we strove for equal measures of positive or negative we would be creating a false balance. Balance actually means proportioning the +'s and -'s in the same measure as found in reliable sources.

The other issue, which is what I think actually brought you here, is that the documentary is about a person who never sought fame or recognition and now they're thrust into the spotlight. Unfortunately, that can happen. Some people seek fame and others have it thrust upon them, and there's nothing we can do about that. For example, Mary Kay Letourneau never sought fame but became famous anyhow due to massive public interest in her case. This is something similar, although this Mr. Organ hasn't come close to reaching that level of infamy, the documentary is clearly notable enough to have an article on it, and as you said, we can't discuss the documentary without discussing this Mr. Organ. Even if it does cast him in a negative light.

Of course, I don't know if it's actually necessary to use his full name in our article. We could simply stick to calling him Mr. Organ, or simply Organ after the first mention, as is common in most other articles. I don't know that using his full name provides any more of a benefit to the reader.

Beyond that, I agree with 100... below that the legal dispute section is confusing at best. For example, why is it discussing lawsuits against people who weren't involved in the film? What's the connection? Also we could do a better job of explaining what "car clamping" is, for people like me who've never heard of it, since it's kind of essential to understanding the film. (They don't do that where I'm from. I thought it was talking about some kind of antique.) As written, the entire article is kinda hard to follow and creates more questions than it gives answers. Zaereth (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The legal section is a hodge-podge of two issues. Someone issued a restraining order against David Farrier, presumably it was Mr Organ who issued it but this isn't confirmed and should not be included in article without any independent source on it. The restraining order was posted online and this led to a court case. The other issue is Farrier taking a sign from Bashford Antiques, he was unable to return it and was thus required to pay damages, although I'm not sure whether these should be included or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hodge podge is a good description. I don't know if any of that should be kept either. I can foresee arguments both for and against. which should be discussed on the talk page. So, without commenting on that, I will say the article is missing a lot of the information needed to make it coherent. A ten-word parenthetical could easily explain what car clamping is. Another sentence on why it's done and how exactly it was allegedly misused would help a ton. Many Wikipedia articles have this problem, though, none more-so than scientific and mathematics articles. They're written like a puzzle of connect the dots, leaving the reader to fill in all the blanks. Not done consciously, of course, but it's difficult and takes a great deal of metaperceptional skills to be able to put oneself in the reader's shoes. The legal section has the same problem. Too many dots are in need of connecting. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've redacted his name. One problem with sourcing is almost every source relating to this involves Farrier himself. The NZ journalism profession is quite small and it's hard to find actual sources that aren't simply reporting Farrier's description of events. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don’t see any obvious BLP problems with this version (following your removal). The Legal Disputes section is almost totally incomprehensible, though. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

James A. Warren Jimmymac72 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey @Jimmymac72: It's not entirely clear to whom you are referring. There have been a lot of people by this or similar names. We also don't have duplicate articles on the same subject. If there is a preexisting article, you should improve the content there, rather than replacing or duplicating it. GMG^talk 12:07, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm trying to add my biography to the page with my name. presently the only comment about me are submitted by others. As far as it goes, those comments are fine, however I want to submit comments that I approved. I would like to upload this complete biography. Thanks. Jimmymac72 (talk) 12:41, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could you please link to the article? I can't find an article for James A. Warren.

In any event, it's not best practice for people to edit articles about themselves. Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There is also no Draft:James A. Warren and Special:Contribs/Jimmymac72 shows no edits except to this page. Judging by James Warren, Wikipedia has existing articles on five living James Warrens, of which perhaps James "Mac" Warren is most likely given Jimmymac72's user name.

At any rate, Jimmymac72, it is not up to you to "approve" the content of your biography on Wikipedia, though you can suggest improvements either here if you make it clear to which article you are actually referring, or on the article talkpage. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jimmymac72, if you are the SWP presidential candidate in 1988 and 1992, then the proper place for you to propose improvements to the article about you is Talk:James Warren (presidential candidate).Make a formal edit request there, providing links to reliable published sources that verify the content that you want to add or change. Your personal recollections are not appropriate for use on Wikipedia, unless published by reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jimmymac72, I recommend you read this essay An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Then really think deeply about this. Do you really want an article here? If you don't have a single skeleton in your closet or potential scandal that the existence of an article here might inspire someone to create against you (maybe you're the rare human being who never made a mistake, and doesn't have a single enemy or person who doesn't like you), then maybe you could have an article here, if there are enough reliable sources to pass the requirements at WP:GNG.

It's your decision. If that biography article is not improved with enough sources to establish your GNG notability, it is not too late to get it deleted, but you have to act quickly, because someone may do that overnight. Once it has passed GNG, you cannot get it deleted. It will be beyond your control. So it's your choice. You could end up with a nice article, or an article that will act as a witness against you for all posterity. As a WP:Public figure, you have little protection against the inclusion of reliably-sourced negative content (even if it is totally scurrilous and false), unlike how we treat non-notable people, where we tend to leave out such things, even if true. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Valjean, the article in question has been here for 18 years. Cullen328 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

OMG! I misunderstood "I'm trying to add my biography to the page with my name." Since this was an apparently new comment, I assumed it was a new article. Anyway, the basic principles I refer to are still worth considering for anyone contemplating an article here. They should be cautious. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi All, Please guide me or provide me assistance with determining notability of this Tech Women's page: User:Techy.Sap/sandbox or Draft:Joan Palmiter Bajorek Techy.Sap (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Spamming an article with passing mentions and promotional content will achieve absolutely nothing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The wife of Christopher Luxon has her name mentioned twice in the article. I removed her name as it adds nothing in the article per WP:BLPNAME but have been reverted twice. Even more worrying is the mention of her former name based on original research in the talk page, I think I should remove it but BLPNAME suggests it only applies to articles even if BLP is supposed to apply to all pages. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I'm generally supportive of removing the names of non-notable spouses, I think the wives of heads of state and government are an exception given that they tend to receive a fair amount of media attention. I mean they can sometimes even travel on official visits, and be involved in welcoming and hosting on official visits. And we even have an article Spouse of the prime minister of New Zealand. The OR thing is more concerning. The general discussion is fine IMO given that it helps explain why we don't list any names, but perhaps removing the names are best if the state of the sources is still correct. Also that means that the spouse article needs to be fixed. Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'll remove alleged maiden names due to OR. I don't believe her name contributes anything to the article as it is only mentioned twice and having a name adds nothing to the article, even if not BLP it is plainly trivial to include.

The spouse article is quite problematic given the unsourced relationship claims and I am going to remove those. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh the relationship split is sourced, to an article titled: 'Incoming prime minister Chris Hipkins wants to keep his family out of the spotlight and has asked for privacy for his children.', I feel this shouldn't be included and I don't think we should even have an article, there's hardly any notability for spouses of the PM. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

As someone who is generally a supporter of BLPNAME, I can't get exited about it when it's the wife of a PM. Her name is certainly widely disseminated. It may not be equal or whatever, but there it is. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tasha K (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This article, created by a sockpuppeteer, is riddled with unverified claims presented as facts, inappropriate language, and unnecessary fluff:

1. "It was Tasha K's show that it was revealed that Will Smith have had gay sex with his fellow Bel-Air actor Duane Martin"

2. "Tasha K also disclosed the three-year clandestine relationship between August Alsina and Jada Pinkett Smith"

3. It describes Dennis McKinley's alleged "cocaine use and infidelity" as "[t]hese vices of his"

4. "It was Tasha K who unraveled that Wendy Williams' ex husband Kevin Hunter had a love child with Sharing Hudson"

5. "Her take on Keke Palmer during the actress' separation from her former husband, Darius Jackson, implied that Palmer allowed the public to believe her ex husband was abusive because he no longer wanted to be with her."

6. "Tasha K gave a congratulatory message to Ice Cube and spouse about their long-lasting marriage and compared Ice Cube to Denzel Washington, another actor known for a long-lasting marriage." <-- absolutely unnecessary

I don't think I need to show more examples; the article's in a bad state and I unfortunately don't have the time to clean it up. I'd appreciate if someone removes at least the blatant BLP violations and fluff for now. Nythar (💬-🍀) 05:48, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I've removed the whole of that section for the time being, we can't have "claims" and "alleged" issues in Wikivoice and the sources are universally terrible anyway. Black Kite (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I'm also unconvinced that the image is the author own work (Tineye is not a lot of help though, as it's heavily cropped). Black Kite (talk) 05:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• A BLP article packed with so many sordid assertions should be checked out in depth by a neutral editor thoroughly familiar with reliable sources in the rap/hip hop topic area. I lack the expertise, the motivation and the stomach to do that work. Cullen328 (talk) 06:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

All this WP:BLPGOSSIP trash came in with the creator of this article. It should be wiped out and recreated at a later time with actual sourcing to RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I need to sort my identity and wish wikipedia to help me with updating my biography.

Jorge Bo Smid 10.07.1981 Founder and Owner of Trademark ManaTapu and mastermind of the movement and artist development. https://www.manatapu.ie/ https://www.manatapu.com/category/announcement/ https://www.tmdn.org/tmview/ https://timesofmalta.com/article/earth-garden-social-media-goes-dark-malicious-copyright-claim.1093726

Until now these wrong entries have created a damage of over million of euro and needs to be solved and updated. Furthermore I am writing as Jorge Bo Smid and the Owner and Founder of the artist band. I wanna make clear I am the only band member and rightful copy and trademark rights holder in Europe.

Please be aware that my image and also trading and identity is infringed as much as my moral integrity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:8080:3900:6CB6:B61C:D3C3:341B (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It is unclear what you are asking. You should begin by making a clearly worded, formal edit request at Talk:ManaTapu. Wikipedia articles summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. Cullen328 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You seem to be asking Wikipedia to take sides in a trademark dispute, according to this source: former member of the band Manatapu, who has an ongoing dispute with his former bandmates about some use of the band’s licensing. Like Cullen328 says above, we just summarize what published reliable sources say about a topic. Wikipedia doesn't take sides. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nazi apologists won't cease from vandalizing his article to remove reliable sources reporting the subject's far-right politics. I would like to request a reversion of their vandalism and editing lock as of my most recent revision — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsarstvovanie (talk • contribs) 19:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

You are both edit warring and need to stop. Your most recent revision violates WP:BLP; the source you're citing does not support calling Cooper a "Nazi apologist" in the first sentence. Please read WP:BLP. Schazjmd (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Please also read WP:HEADLINES - headlines—including subheadlines—are not a reliable source, and also WP:EXCEPTIONAL - Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources and MOS:LABEL - Value-laden labels – such as calling an individual a neo-Nazi – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution, and WP:ONUS - the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• This page was only created today. Is the subject even notable apart from the fact he said some fucking stupid things on Tucker Carlson's show yesterday? Black Kite (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Judging by the sources, it doesn't appear that way. The only real secondary sources I saw wre related to the Carlson show, and those are iffy at best. I couldn't read the first one because I'm not giving them my email address, but it started off like a possible op/ed column, and the other one was more or less a bunch of quote from the show with no context, and not much else. If anything looks like a candidate for AFD, it's this one. Zaereth (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why It Jason Emer Needs to Be Deleted?

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. He may become noteworthy enough later down the line but for now, the subject does not need to have a page on Wikipeda. Anyone who can make me understand why it should be kept, please let me know. I am very curious and believe i spotted a promotional activity on this platform.

WikiProCreate (talk) 06:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have removed what I thought was problematic.[7] There may needs to be further review whether this person is notable. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Previous AfD, for reference. I haven't looked into whether this person is notable, but any forthcoming deletion nomination will need to address the claims that Emer meets both WP:BASIC and WP:NACADEMIC made in there. (Also I note that the editor who has repeatedly removed content crititcal of Emer with misleading edit summaries is currently pblocked from the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi - This biography has not been updated to reflect the adaption of Wolfgang and Heike Hohlbein's book to create the 2023 television series "Der Greif". Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2610:20:8800:630A:0:0:0:B3A (talk) 15:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wolfgang Hohlbein is not protected so you can edit it yourself. We also have Bibliography of Wolfgang Hohlbein. Have you checked there? Cullen328 (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The last paragraph of the career section of this article includes discussion of a controversy regarding the Athletic Director of the University of Iowa during Barbara Wilson's tenure as President of the University. This discussion within the article fail to meet the biographies of living persons policy regarding tone and balance. The paragraph describes a lawsuit settlement in non-neutral language. The tone and lack of further information from the cited sources attempts to imply that Barbara was negligent in her actions regarding the topic of the lawsuit. Having such an implication regarding a lawsuit in the biography of a living person is clearly in violation of the policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.85.9.21 (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Removed, and thanks! In the future, if you're not prevented from doing so by page protection or some conflict of interest on your part, you should remove such content yourself. If you are so prevented, use the associated talk page to make the case for removal. This is a good place to come to if talk page discussion doesn't prove fruitful due to lack of response or failure to reach consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could someone please delrev revision 1232398614 from John Michael Montgomery? It contains polemic misinformation about the subject. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Cullen328 (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could someone here please respond to this allegation and determine whether or not to include it?--Trade (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What exactly makes this a BLP issue? Pinguinn 🐧 03:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

the accusation i presume. dont know where else to post this Trade (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is not a BLP issue, but an NPOV dispute. So the right noticeboard for this thread is WP:NPOVN. NicolausPrime (talk) 09:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Insofar as there is dispute about the reliability of the sources involved, WP:RSN might also be useful Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello

I am a friend of chess grandmaster Francisco Vallejo Pons. He's concerned about changes in his english page of Wikipedia. He's happy with spanish content, true and real, and he wants to have the same content but in english.

He don't understand why some people remove the content because it's only a biography, true and real.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monscaro (talk • contribs) 07:16, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Monscaro Short version: An en-WP article about a person is supposed to be a summary of WP:RS that are independent of the subject, and these sources need to be correctly cited in the article. en-WP is not (generally) interested in what the subject or his friends wants to say about him. If you know about good WP:RS that would be useful for Francisco Vallejo Pons, you can suggest them at Talk:Francisco Vallejo Pons.

Longer version: WP:BLP and WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. Hope this makes an amount of sense, Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Btw, this English sentence from his website-bio [8] doesn't quite make sense to me: "Nissio, a family friend, discovered his capacities when he hadn’t almost learn all chess rules,"

If you agree you can pass that on. I added a little WP:ABOUTSELF-stuff to the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I put an Expand Spanish tag on the article. The article is also within the scope of WikiProject Chess, so it's possible they may know where to find sources related to this chess grandmaster. When I get time, I'll do some research as well, and place any sources I find on the talk page. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The #Disputes and rebuttals section of the article contains violations of WP:POV and is basically just original research and almost all (if not all) the sources in that section are unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abo Yemen (talk • contribs) 15:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

are any of these folks still living? The sect seems old, and its a claim of a religious order, which means WP:BLP may not apply.. consider postign on WP:NPOVN instead? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes this family is still very alive in their original homeland (Hadhramaut). The only image there is of a diaspora in Indonesia , which is what I am going to guess is the reason why you taught that they are dead Abo Yemen✉ 09:05, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abo Yemen, which specific named living people are you concerned with? That's all we deal with on this noticeboard. Cullen328 (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The page NLE Choppa was recently edited by an anonymous IP. This edit contains potentially libelous material. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

GeorgeMemulous, I have revision deleted the unreferenced contentious material. Cullen328 (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply