Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevo327 (talk | contribs) at 10:24, 13 October 2023 (→Elchin Amirbeyov: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input.

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

    Search this noticeboard & archives
    Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Additional notes:




    Tarique Rahman

    The two Wikipedia articles Tarique Rahman and A. Q. M. Badruddoza Chowdhury are wrongly pointing out that Tarique Rahman was the President of Bangladesh. No such references and citations exist either online or in hard copy either as this is a factually wrong information. Tarique Rahman was never the President of Bangladesh. 12:27, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    This was a recent unexplained change made by an IP user; I have reverted it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Tarique Rahman is not an incumbent either. That is a factually wrong information. No such references or citations can be found online either. 20:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

    Simon Ekpa

    Apparently this person has claims a nationality of a "government in exile" ([1], [2]) and a lot of users are commenting on the article's talk page asking for it to be changed. I am uncertain how to proceed. Do we allow self-identification of nationality or do we adhere to government documents! EvergreenFir (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TBH I'm not sure his G in E is more than a website (it may be). But according to WP, a G in E is "a political group that claims to be a..." so it's not a high bar. I don't think nationality is something we generally do self-identification on. Also, not sure it's a lot of users, as in several people. The article has had some socking issues. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My general view is that people there are conflating two different things. Nationality simply refers to what nation a person is from, that is, where they are native to. "Nation" is more related to a specific land and its people than any government, per the definition. "Nation - (n.) a large body of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory." It comes from the Latin nat, meaning "born", combined with the Latin suffix -tion, which alters it to mean the place or state where someone comes from. It let's the reader pinpoint the land on a map, but it's not an indication of any particular governmental affiliation. (This may be one of those things where the subtleties of the English language are being lost in translation. Non-native speakers of a language typical interpret things very literally, so maybe explaining it clearer will help.) Zaereth (talk) 01:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:NATIONALITY says that "in controversial or unclear cases, nationality is sometimes omitted", so an editorial decision could be made to omit Ekpa's nationality given that he apparently rejects it. I have no opinion on whether it should be omitted. I'm pretty sure that his nationality shouldn't be listed as Biafran given that Biafra ceased to exist 15 years before he was born. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable to me. I see no reason why it has to be included, except it gives the readers more insight into a person if they can look up the land and culture they come from. I guess it's a matter of weighing the pros and cons at that point, which is best done by involved editors. I was just thinking that if people on the talk page were to think of it in terms of the land and people that he is native to (nation/native both come from the same meaning), then they may not object as much. It just sounds silly to say he's a native of a government. For example, I am a native Alaskan (not to be confused with an Alaska Native), which by definition makes me an American native (not to be confused with Native American, although in fact my grandma was Native American). The U.S. of America is simply the land and people I come from, so American is my nationality. Doesn't mean I support Biden or Trump, or even statehood for that matter. (Puerto Rico and Guam were probably smart to have stayed territories, but what is, is.) Zaereth (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear extinguished editors,
    It has become an established concept right from historical facts that a government-in-exile exercises full legal rights as a country but then, in Exile and shall one day return to their native country regaining full formal power. I implore everyone of us to make a little research here: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_in_exile) Now, in the case of Biafra, it existed during 1967-70 civil war but aftermath, formed a government-in-exile called "Biafra Republic Government in Exile" as clearly stated on Wikipedia's definition of G-I-N
    To explain further, Simon Ekpa have long denounced Nigeria as his Nationality. See one of the sources back in 2021: (https://punchng.com/ipob-ex-nigerian-athlete-simon-ekpa-to-return-medal-gives-reasons/) This declaration of his automatically cleared every doubt on his nationality issue that we're currently solving here. He doesn't pledge allegiance to Nigeria nor does he hold Nigerian passport. Saying Simon Ekpa is a Nigerian by Nationality is more of violation of his legal rights if l may say. He denounced Nigeria openly. Check out the source above please.
    Simon Ekpa have identified with Biafra Republic Government in Exile of which he's now the Prime Minister of the political organization representing Biafra as a country in Exile. I will keep saying, everyone should kindly read the definition of government-in-exile which l dropped the article link above.
    I wish to clear the doubt of editors who may have the doubt that BRGIE is only on website. Check link: https://dailypost.ng/2023/07/22/ekpa-announces-biafra-self-referendum-convention/
    The convention is physical and l believe it has cleared every doubt that BRGIE is only on website. They are on ground. The convention will take place in Finland on 20th-21st of October 2023. On the website also, they stated their head office located in Maryland US. The full address is there. Verify!
    Sorry to have digressed a little bit. In view of the definition of government-in-exile, l hereby state unequivocally that "Biafran" can be said to be Nationality. This is to say that you don't be a national of a country you don't recognize or hold it's passport. Simon Ekpa doesn't identify as a Nigerian legally, verbally or otherwise so why put Nigerian as his Nationality? Let's consider it!
    Now, to cap it all, Simon Ekpa is a Finnish Citizen. (Indisputable) He's neither a Nigerian citizen nor national. He's a Biafran by Nationality, legally, technically logically, historically and otherwise. (Indisputable) In my own honest opinion, I strongly suggest that "Nationality" parameter should be removed entirely from the article infobox if my clarifications can't convince you every editor enough that Simon Ekpa is not "Nigerian" but a "Biafran" by Nationality.
    Thanks everyone. Fugabus (talk) 10:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Your legal theories are irrelevant here. Unless you can cite reliable sources which describe Ekpa as a Biafran national, Wikipedia is not going to describe Ekpa as a Biafran national. You may be able to convince editors that Ekpa's nationality should be omitted from the article altogether, but I'd be very surprised if you persuade anyone of anything with comments like the above. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression was that we're speaking specifically of the infobox here, since it's the only use of the word "nationality" in the article. I don't see us removing "born in Nigeria" etc. I'm not against removing it from the infobox, since it's a bit complicated in this case, and infoboxes suck at complicated. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My emphasis lie on the fact that Ekpa and his runs a government-in-exile which claims control of Biafra that existed between 1967-70 as a country. We can't dispute that history of Biafra being a country, though formerly defunct but now officially in Exile.
    I keep referencing to Wikipedia's standard definition of a government in Exile and what it means practically.
    His physical presence can be seen (https://sunnewsonline.com/ekpa-declares-self-prime-minister-of-biafra/)
    I also wish to opine with other editors that the Nationality parameter be removed entirely from the infobox if Biafra can't be added as his Nationality. Fugabus (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Luis Moreno Ocampo

    This was reverted as alleged WP:LIBEL. However, Rodney Dixon is described in Jurist as an expert in international criminal law with particular expertise in cases involving alleged genocide and crimes against humanity, having acted in cases before the ICTY, ICTR and the ICC. His several third-party sources cited here and here do support his statements.

    Later, third-party sources have not corroborated Ocampo's similar weird claim of genocide during flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, most notably UNHCR, UN fact-finding mission on the ground or Russian peacekeepers in the region. Yet, there are strange regular attempts to promote Ocampo's opinion, while UN assessment gets marginalized: [3], [4]. As such, I think this could be reinstated in the article. Brandmeistertalk 12:00, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The source being used for Ocampo's claim is Ocampo's own webpage. In other words the report is self-published. I can't see how the the material you have added could be considered libellous. In particular, the statement "It was concluded that information that clearly undermines Ocampo's conclusions is simply left out" is not libellous afaict. Regarding the sources you have used, they are at least as suitable as the source for Ocampo's claim. Burrobert (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll start by saying that some context is missing from OP's thread here: as I stated in ANI, Brandmeister has cited an opinion piece by Rodney Dixon, a lawyer that Azerbaijan directly hired to help rejecting the Ocampo report,[5] to attack Ocampo's views.[6] This seems to be a WP:LIBEL violation. Ocampo was also cited in other publications [7], [8], so it's not just his webpage and I'm sure there are more.
    Regarding the UN report, as it was noted by me in ANI and BilledMammal, it was misinterpreted by the OP and isn't widely covered in RS even when compared to USAID. UN delegation was also criticized directly for coming to the region only after 99% of population had fled already [9], [10]. But regardless, UN report is being discussed on the article talk and I'm not sure why the OP thought to bring it up here of all places to draw some strange parallels with Ocampo while omitting details from the article discussion. - Kevo327 (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - If Ocampo's report is cited in reliable sources, use them rather than his own website.
    - The Politico article says Azerbaijan "has hired London lawyer Rodney Dixon to write a rejection of the Moreno Ocampo report". What is the relevance of WP:libel? Dixon's statements are not invalidated by his connection to the Azerbaijan government. Include his statements and inform readers that he was hired to write a rejection of Ocampo's report.
    - Presumably the reason this issue was raised here was the accusation that libel was involved. Burrobert (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ocampo is the inaugural prosecutor of ICC, there needs to be a more WP:DUE criticism of him to be included in his article, not from a lawyer hired directly by the country Ocampo was criticizing.
    Also I have no problem for libel being brought up here, my concerns are why the UN report was brought up by OP in a BLPN discussion to draw strange parallels with Ocampo while omitting important details from the article discussion about said report. - Kevo327 (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note on the source used. The Jurist is likely better than most sources that get used on Wikipedia, but as a student journal a better source is probably a good idea when it comes to discussions of genocide. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There were a number of controversies concerning this person, and I'm not sure whether these were adequately covered in the article. In particular, there were reports in Der Spiegel: [11], The Financial Times: [12], The Times: [13], The Telegraph: [14], World Affairs [15], etc. Grandmaster 14:24, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not libel, but not WP:DUE either. The only reliable and independent source I could find covering Dixon in this context was this CNN article, and even that doesn't discuss the report, just the preliminary opinion letter. Further, it focuses more on Ocampo's allegations than it does on Dixon's rebuttal, and it makes it explicitly clear that Dixon was hired by Azerbaijan. BilledMammal (talk) 09:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, none of the WP:UNDUE concerns were addressed here and I don't see any consensus for OP to restore their undue edit. Also WP:ONUS applies. - Kevo327 (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Mubarak Abdullah Al-Mubarak Al-Sabah

    Sheikh Mubarak Abdullah Al-Mubarak Al Sabah is alive and well. You may have confused him with another person - Sheikh Mubarak Abdullah Al Ahmad Al Jaber Al Sabah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.97.185 (talk) 17:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the claim of his death for being unsourced, thanks. FossilWave (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Donal MacIntire

    Self Proclaimed Criminologist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.43.82 (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Donal MacIntyre? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else proclaimed, it seems. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    deej fabyc

    Hi I note that the University cited on this page for MFA is incorrect it is in fact the UNSW NOT USW. UNSW is in Sydney Australia USW is in Wales UK so - not even in same continent please see this link https://unsworks.unsw.edu.au/entities/publication/e7263b61-b545-40cf-85a3-942d458cfd32

    correction would be much appreciated Thank you Deej Fabyc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.55.206.48 (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed, the originally cited sources already had the correct information in them, so no need to turn to the primary source cited above. Iffy★Chat -- 16:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ron Haffkine

    my cousin died October 1, 2023. Please update to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:337:AAA9:D189:5497:590D:F00E (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh my gosh. I'm truly sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, we have to be very cautious about reporting someone's death, so we require a good, reliable source before we can do that. There is a chance that no reliable sources will report it on their own, however. My suggestion would be for you and the other family members to write an obituary and submit it to your local newspaper. Once it's published, you can bring that source here or the article's talk page and we can easily update it for you. One again, my condolences. Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This has since been added to Ron Haffkine, sourced to the Hollywood Reporter. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Steve Hilton

    Steve Hilton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Hi editors, I am seeking opinions on this request to update a small section of the biography of political commentator Steve Hilton about the 2020 U.S. election.

    The Wikipedia article says "Hilton promoted Trump's false claims of large-scale fraud," but this is not supported by the cited source, The Independent. Instead, the source quotes Hilton as saying "any evidence of fraud or irregularity should be brought forward and the court should adjudicate." Hilton also said "But when it’s this close. This important with this many late changes to the rules, of course, we should investigate them thoroughly. Not just for the sake of the win but for the sake of faith in our system." The sourcing never states Hilton supports specific election fraud claims. There is a difference between "promoting" specific fraud claims and saying that "any evidence of fraud or irregularity" should be investigated, and the Wikipedia article should faithfully represent the source material per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

    In attempting an edit request to have the Wikipedia article faithfully represent the source material, a reviewing editor asked me to continue the discussion to reach consensus, which brings me here. I have a conflict of interest, as I am here on behalf of Steve Hilton, which is why I have not edited the article directly myself. I am happy to discuss further on the article Talk page. SKflo (talk) 19:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    u5 Deletion Request For Deen K. Chatterjee

    This page was created by a user for financial extortion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deenchat (talk • contribs) 01:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    That is a particularly serious allegation, and frankly, given the article creator's extensive editing history, seems somewhat implausible. If you have actual evidence to back the claim up, I suggest you contact either the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee or the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department [16] privately by email, providing full details. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I agree. If this was an attack article then I might take it seriously, but the article could not be reasonably described as an attack article in the slightest. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:U5 certainly wouldn't apply, as that is for pages in "User space" (Ones that are references with User:, and usually are mainly the pages where editors explain who they are and their interests.) This item is in what we call "article space". Creating editor doesn't qualify as a "has made few or no edits outside of user pages"; it looks like there's over a decade of reasonable contribution and no history of being "blocked" for improper behavior. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As a courtesy to Dr. Chatterje (presuming it is actually him) I've nominated the article for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deen K. Chatterjee. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:56, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    PalmStar Media

    My name is Kevin Scott Frakes. PalmStar Media is a business I started in college. I am the sole owner, operator, employee, etc. I believe the page falls under WP:BLPGROUP, as a page about a "small group or organization." The company is just me. I would like to raise the following issues for impartial editors to consider:

    • The Alchemist: Wikipedia says production of the movie is "no longer happening". However, this is contradicted by the cited source, where the producers said "The issue is anticipated to be resolved in the coming days and the project back on track within weeks, potentially." There was a recent announcement about a new studio taking over the rights to get production started again and Palmstar Media will be producing it.[17]
    • Legal Issues: The casual reader would see this section title and think my company is in legal trouble. However, I am the Plaintiff in both mentioned lawsuits. I think this section violates WP:CRITS, because it is dedicated to those collaboration deals where controversies arose and should be merged with the Collaboration Deals section.
    • National Lampoon lawsuit specifically: This violates WP:UNDUE, because it is cited to a niche trade publication for legal issues that churns out large volumes of blurbs, announcements, and re-written press releases. It's the equivalent of citing daily stock tips from investor publications.

    Pinging @Drmies: and @Graywalls:, who have both shown an interest in the page/situation. Ksf207 (talk) 17:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    This might be a topic for NPOV/N than BLP. Something like Johnson Brothers (hypothetical) in whicvh they're notable as a group and when one of the brothers is accused of infidelity as an example an example where case-by-case application of BLP. The lawsuit is not of personal nature, but a business dispute, and appropriately sourced. Law360 is a reliable source and it has writing by its reporter Lauren Berg rather than it being a more-or-less a copy and paste of a press release. The argument that it's only an industry magazine is sound if we're talking about its use in evaluating if the article subject meets WP:NCORP to exist on Wikipedia, which I might add, PalmStar Media may not. Graywalls (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Graywalls here on the BLP suggestion. I don't feel BLP really applies to major businesses, even major business which are basically the vehicle for one person. And I would consider any business making million dollar deals major. Although frankly for any business I would say BLP rarely applies in relation to the business. I mean I could imagine considering BLP for a sole trader business for a plumber or contractor or something (but it's going to be very rare this comes up in practice). I'd note that while I don't doubt the OP's claims about the nature of the PalmStar Media business, the sources I looked at just call him the CEO. Perhaps within the industry it's known that PalmStar Media is just the OP, but I think most people are just going to think of PalmStar Media as a major business without realising it's only the OP involved. Note that this doesn't mean we can ignore any possible issues simply that dealing with them from a BLP lens is not the right solution. BLP would still apply in any case where our article makes an accusation against the OP (e.g. as the CEO). Nil Einne (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nil Einne:, I mean, if a business satisfies NCORP as a business, I don't see BLP applying on matters concerning business regardless of the size of business. A band involved in a lawsuit over contractual disputes as a band with the venue or the recording industry that is deemed significant enough by the media to have an article is not BLP. A band member who got into a barfight facing allegation of assault is BLP even if the news coverage identifies the accused as a member of the particular band that was touring. Graywalls (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Eyes on BLP Guaidó issues with Interpol red alert request by Maduro administration

    Achieving neutrality, and avoiding BLP breaches and undue weight at Operation Gideon (2020) has been a constant struggle (see the talk page and two past talk archives and work underway to prep for a Move request).

    This matter has taken on some importance this week, as the administration of Nicolas Maduro has requested a red alert for Guaido from Interpol (I hope I have that terminology correct), now living in the US, based partly on "Operation Gideon". More eyes are needed at Guaido, the Presidential crisis, but more urgently, at the Gideon article, which saw an unusual spike in pageviews just before the announcement. There have been ongoing BLP breaches and issues with misrepresentation of and poor use of sources, with very real consequences to living persons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add that this is not the first time that Maduro's government issues an Interpol red alert against political opponents and that it recently requested the extradition of Antonio Ledezma and Dinorah Figuera([18]), so I would ask for care with those article too, although I can imagine that Guaidó's article probably will be the most affected. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the information. Now I can see why you were mentioning this in a separate discussion. WMrapids (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I placed an edit regarding the incident in the article since you two haven't done it over the past few days. Feel free to take a look! WMrapids (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is using a primary source interview excerpt from a source about which there is no agreement on reliability to contradict statements from higher-quality secondary sources to claim that Guaido's representatives acted illegally: Talk:Operation Gideon (2020)#Statements about legality, BLP issues. Attention, more eyes, other opinions needed to the serious BLP implications here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Please do not forum shop. The excerpt does not describe anything illegal. WMrapids (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You are welcome to explain on my talk page how you get forum shopping out of a) first alerting the BLP noticeboard of an Interpol red alert on 7 October, and b) a followup on October 8 after you edit warred other marginally-related content in a separate discussion into the 2020 Venezuelan Operation Gideon article, and c) an RFC at that talk page two days later, on October 9 over that content, after the post here received zero attention. I was under the impression we took BLP issues quite seriously, and that posts with legal consequences about living persons would get rapid attention from this board. They did not, so I opened an RFC; what would your preferred next step be, since others won't edit war against you, so the content, for which you have no consensus, stands, against BLP policy ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinagare Mogodi

    https://thebossstory.com/the-remarkable-journey-of-matshapa-a-botshelo-mab/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by PINAGARE (talk • contribs) 17:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't have an article with that title, and that link would be worthless as a source (unknown provenance). —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 18:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Altman

    IPs have been putting some serious allegations onto this article using unreliable sources (Twitter). We've now got it protected, but some accounts have started adding them, eg here, which the protection doesn't cover and diffs haven't been deleted. It can quite easily be reverted but I'm requesting people to watch out for the article and delete the diffs. Note that a discussion has been placed here, I'm not familiar enough with policy to tell if that should be deleted aswell. —Panamitsu (talk) 22:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that this hasn't been covered by reliable sources, I think including but is a clear BLP vio. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for Removal of Autobiography Tag from Eamonn Fingleton's Biography

    From Blindside1995:

    This article has been tagged as an “autobiography”. I am the subject of the article and would like this tag to be removed, as it is not true.

    Up to a few weeks ago I had not looked at the page in nearly three years and I was unaware of the tag.

    It would appear that I -- or someone close to me -- did do some significant editing at the time the entry was launched more than fifteen years ago (I actually have no memory of this but Wikipedia's record seems clear). Regardless, as per the article's edit history, those initial contributions now constitute less than 10 percent of the article's length. The vast bulk of the article has been created and edited by neutral parties with no connection to me. I therefore submit that the tag should be deleted. Blindside1995 (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @WhinyTheYounger: for their opinion since they added the tag. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the tag given that a bulk of the article as it stands now was written by Hubbert545. Outstanding issues remain — primarily the very heavy reliance on primary sources — but I don't feel those warrant another tag, personally. WhinyTheYounger ※ Talk 12:14, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Paulina Alexis, excessive detail

    I was reading this blog post which discusses a Reddit thread on how the article for Paulina Alexis is overly detailed, to an obsessive degree. User:Colin.r.neary is the primary contributor of this content. From reading the article in its current state, I think it needs attention for source quality, coherence, and topic relevance. It is also 11,640 words (not characters, words). I wanted to bring this up to actual editors who are familiar with BLP policies, not just Redditors. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I second this. Huge sections of this article are, to be frank, very creepy, and written less like an encyclopedia and more like a fan blog including unnecessarily intimate details about her personal life (including her skin/hair care and her shoe preferences!). This needs immediate attention by editors with experience writing BLPs. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 18:59, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. The article is absurdly over-detailed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin.r.neary is an SPA who has solely contributed to that article. Would it be worthwhile just reverting to the stub that was there before they began editing [19] or is that overkill? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be overkill; there are the bones of something in there, we just need to trim the excess. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And check for copyvio at the same time. Some of it looks like very close paraphrasing, even if being charitable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Premeditated Chaos: respectfully disagree. This needs a deep, deep scrub. If that leaves something behind that's more than a stub, fine; but it really needs to be scoured before we can see what's left. The SPA refers to themself as the subject's "biggest fan"; bigger-picture there's something very unhealthy-feeling about all of this. VQuakr (talk) 20:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the best way to do this is to create a sandbox draft? We can start with the basics (the lead, infobox, and commented-out categories) and then slowly port over and rewrite worthy pieces of the existing article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing wrong with drafting, but scrub in place is fine. Content exists in the history if there's something we want to restore. VQuakr (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to be clear I'm not remotely opposed to a deep scrub, but reverting to a stub isn't the best option here IMO. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Julianna Guill

    Not sure if this is the right place, but the same gross statement keeps getting added to this article sourced off some dubious article about "hot promiscuous characters in horror films". Would love some input here, cheers! NathanielTheBold (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if the source was WP:RS, it wouldn't support the claim being made. Revert as a WP:BLP violation and/or report the contributor at WP:ANI if they add it again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Robert B. Spencer

    I feel that there is potential borderline libel labeling him as anti-muslim rather than anti-islam, all of the sources I've read really seem like smear pieces based on everything I have read and heard and from his own website and his books. This paints him as a racist when he only condemns islamic extremism and the religion of islam. I'm arguing from the same ground that transgender women identify as women, adherents of islam identify as muslim. The closest thing he has made to anything even remotely anti-muslim is the title of a book "Onward Muslim Soldiers: How Jihad Still Threatens America and the West" where he is clearly referring to the religion islam and not the actual muslim people, he only cites islamic sources and scholars to back up his claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.131.151 (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, several things. I'll start by saying that using "So-and-so is an anti-muslim." is extremely poor writing, especially as the opening sentence. It sounds childish and completely unprofessional. Above all else, he's a blogger, and the reader needs to know this first before telling us what he is known for blogging about. Name calling in an obvious attempt to illicit an emotional response from the reader is... childish.
    That said, I think you may be drawing a distinction without a difference. There is no muslim race, so arguments of racism are moot. People of all races are in fact muslim. Also, your argument about transgender is flawed. Napoleon self-identified as a great leader, yet the people of France disagreed, and my brother identifies as a nice guy when in fact he's kind of an a-hole. The subject may say he's not anti-muslim, but his actions may tell a different story, and that's the thing we're interested in. Muslims don't "identify" as muslims, that's just what they are. People only have to identify as something when they are not that thing, and usually it's a case of trying to unconsciously convince themselves rather than others. If you truly believe, then no one needs convincing. (The person we know least is almost always ourselves, so humans spend a lot of times trying to convince themselves otherwise. The whole field of psychiatry is built on that foundation.) So we don't always take people's word for it when they self identify as something, except in certain cases where it's morally or socially right to do so, such as gender or sexual orientation, but for most things it's far better to let the actions of the subject do the talking.
    Which brings this full circle. It's going to be difficult to achieve any kind of consensus with the arguments you're using, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. The sources do use the phrase "anti-muslim", and for many that's going to be a difficult hurdle to get past. Of course, the sources are the bottom of the barrel as the hierarchy of sources go, being news outlets, and the articles themselves are poorly written. Good writing doesn't use name calling. Name calling is just a way of invoking emotions and the part of the brain that categorizes and stereotypes, rather than than the part that works things out logically and rationally, which is a great propaganda tactic but also incredibly obvious to anyone with half a wit, which is why it comes off as child-like. Better would be to let the actions do all the talking and let the reader come to their conclusions on their own. It's not only better writing, but is far more believable that way. Zaereth (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Spencer is well known as a prominent figurehead of the "counter-jihad" movement, which is widely described as islamophobic by reliable sources. The IP just seems to be unhappy with the way RS describe Spencer. I wouldn't oppose a change to "anti-Islam" though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe so, I've never heard of him before. Doesn't change the fact that it's poor writing. That's the way people speak in the here and now, and it's expected from a newspaper because they report in the present tense and the first person, plus they make more money when they can stir up emotions. Encyclopedias aren't written that way. For an example, just check any really good article. Now I'm not drawing any parallels here whatsoever, but just as an example, check out the article on Adolph Hitler. We don't start off by saying he was an anti-semite. In fact, we don't say it at all. No need to, his actions speak too loudly to hear it anyhow. We say he promoted anti-semitism. We explain all the anti-semitic things he did and said. At best it would come off as unprofessional and childish, and at worst it would insult the reader's intelligence by pointing out the obvious. As I said, it's far more convincing that way. Zaereth (talk) 03:45, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for my poorly written arguments, but I just feel that there are several logical fallacies within the arguments for painting him as anti-muslim, what I am getting at is that muslim is an identity and islam is a religion and the tenants of that religion identify as muslim, but spencer does not attack muslims as people he attacks their viewpoints using their own scholar's sources and religious texts. Possibly a "Courtier's reply" or some sort of appeal to authority fallacy in which the writers of the articles are not subject matter experts on the topic. Virtually all of his work covers jihad and islamic extremism so I feel it is unfair to state him as categorically anti-muslim and feel that anti-islam matches the broader context that his works cover. 69.154.131.151 (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No insult intended. Please take it as constructive criticism in order to help you. I understand your point. It just seems like a distinction without a difference. I could say, as a Viking, I'm anti-catholic. (Not that I am, just an example.) Does that mean I dislike catholics, or catholicism? Since a religion is made up of the people who believe in it, not the other way around, then does it really make a difference?
    See, this sort of thing comes up here a lot, whether it's anti-muslim, anti-vaccines, or moon-landing deniers, there's this natural tendency of people to want to simply slap an emotional label on it that will invoke people's prejudices. It's a tactic as old as time itself. The Romans did it. The Nazis did it. The Allies did it. The KKK did it. We're still doing it today. Small children do it. It's far easier to slap a label on something because then you can define that subject simply by the connotations that label invokes. It goes to the very strengths and weaknesses of how the vertebrate mind operates. (For more, see User:Zaereth#Little boxes.) It relies on people's stereotypes and prejudices without all those actual facts that get in the way of achieving the goal intended by the author, which is why it's such a good propaganda tool. People can try to rationalize it in a million different ways, but the simple fact is that people use these labels because their emotions tell them to, not their brains.
    But it's poor writing. We shouldn't insult the reader's intelligence by telling them he's anti-muslim or anti-islam, regardless if either or both of those is true. Look at it from the reader's point of view. It's would be like saying "Darth Vader is evil." That would make me think, "He blew up an entire planet, you moron. Don't you think I can see that for myself?" In writing there's an old saying: "Show. Don't tell." The best thing to do is to rewrite it to show me the subject is anti-whatever. Don't come right out and tell me it. Give me some credit for having a brain. It's more difficult to do that way, but that's what makes it good writing. Zaereth (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Vexxed

    Persistent addition of unsourced claims of death. I can't find any mention on Google so far. More eyes, please. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:30, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Shani Louk

    I believe the article for Shani Louk is a violation of privacy and Wikipedia guidelines and policies. It should be either deleted or redirected fully to Re'im music festival massacre.

    WP:AVOIDVICTIM WP:BLP1E — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:598:89F9:DCA2:1:2:6241:F50B (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Jeong Myeong Seok

    Jung Myung-seok (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    The biography is extremely biased as it only focuses on negativity and overly reports accusations of crimes. The person was not convicted yet and yet the article claims it was. Also, a description that he is a rapist, is absolutely obnoxious as no person can be determined as a rapist as long as it's not proven otherwise. So far, no evidence of DNA has been found in the juridical process. The article mentioned someone supposedly said something, that is absolutely not a neutral stand point and can't be taken as a fact or a proof. I petition to change the article in a lawful, fair way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.123.247.228 (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The article cites multiple credible sources stating that Jeong Myeong Seok has been convicted of rape etc. See e.g. [20][21] to pick a couple at random. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Elchin Amirbeyov

    This Azerbaijani diplomat is quoted in the article Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians as saying:

    Elchin Amirbeyov, the representative of the Azerbaijani president, said that "a genocide may happen" if the Republic of Artsakh did not capitulate, with the reference to an article in The Christian Post [22] However the original interview of Amirbeyov to DW is available online, and this is not what he said. He actually said:

    "First of all you have to approach this issue from purely legal point of view, from the point of international law. There is no evidence which was provided by those who suggest that there is genocide in the making, that these people are exterminated because of their ethnic origin. As I said, a genocide may happen only if this clique of separatists will continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals. We must be very attentive and careful with using this very hard accusation".

    He was actually rejecting the accusations of ethnic cleansing. The Christian Post conveyed this part as:

    "Elchin Amirbayov, a senior spokesman for Azerbaijan's president, had earlier predicted that "a genocide may happen" if Nagorno Karabakh's elected leaders do not submit."

    This is an inaccurate quote of what exactly was said. But the Wikipedia article in question distorts even the inaccurate The Christian Post article, because neither source used the words such as "Republic of Artsakh", or "capitulate". Since it is a BLP issue, we must be careful with ascribing to living persons things that they did not say. If we are to quote this diplomat, his speech should be quoted directly from the original source, using the exact same wording that this person himself used, and not via an obscure newspaper article. Grandmaster 09:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    As I said, a genocide may happen only if this clique of separatists will continue to hold hostage their own population in order to get to their political goals.
    This is like a mob boss saying "If you don't pay for protection a fire may happen." The secondary source has recognized that; there is no BLP problem here. BilledMammal (talk) 09:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Context is important here. The phrase should be quoted within the whole context. Grandmaster 10:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    We prefer secondary sources on Wikipedia, we're not going to use a YouTube video for "context", this is bizarre. And the "context" isn't much better to begin with. - Kevo327 (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1179927338"